PENRITH MUP ΚΜ CEL EPP 
A ARG SH 
BUA LE ΗΝ ay 
BAAS RN has See an ἮΝ 
ἬΝ ἡ 
Π 


iit 4H ΤῊ) Hy ᾿ 


WAALS Wy vith) he H ΜΝ ' \ r 
ἡ ἢ ith wa ᾿ ! 
ἢ i fs 


Ὡς 
ἜΣ. 


I i ἐν ἂς " t 

A iH ΠΗ ' ἘΝ i 

ἢ it PNW HRA each ity tf ἢ inbehet aeean : 
Raat = 


iste 
2 


Ὧν 
: I ὅτεν 
a 
Nasa ee 

vat = a i 


ΠΝ] 
hes hg ὃ MER 
BARAT ah, 
Te 
bait ti} ἣ ih ἢ 
ΤῊΝ ΠΝ ft 


isk: 


iH Pay 
i ay 
1 


Eeiepess pt 
SB tttspaetisss 
ἘΞ thst 35 


epee 


ΠΗ aie 
1H } hah 
ih ΠΝ nt 


pi gis 5k $253 


See et ee 


yg σα τῷ 


ee τον, ας ταν 


=—= 


=~ 


SS το τεσ 


= — 
SSS SSeS 
eee ae 


HDMi eH 
Teeny 

Wi Misra un torent 

ata G Mat 


Raat 


Sent a ee ees 
SS eS 


Hy yas Balad 

Vang yy + 

ΠῚ Ὶ ΓΗ 

ἌΝ ΠΥ tf Bas eh RR EA et f 

ΗΝ 

ΧΗ ΗΠ i ΑΝ PERG en bard) H hither 
ἜΝ ΠῚ ΠΝ 

' , E'S Or 
a 


i DAMES rH eB } 
; ΠΡ Ἰ 
ial 


Ale 
alin ἢ 

| i ΠῚ 

ἡ} ἢ ὁ ti ἷ at tie 

realy 


Deby 
/ 


BHI HY StH 


Columbia Cniversitp 
inthe Citp of Nem Pork 


THE LIBRARIES 


i, oy 
ἢ ΝΣ ἈΝ. 


ey 


Fee be 
Daas 


eo” Tae ἊΨ 


δ ἂν ο  τ νὼ» ᾿ ie 


an 
ore: Pe 


- 
_ 
{ 
7 τ , 
é 
᾿ 
᾿ ᾿ 
7 
| & 
> 
δ 
ce 
A 
» ᾿ 
α 
5 
Oo Ε 
͵ 
- 
᾿ 


; “ὦ, ᾿ 


Se) Sf SU BSe@ Rite nhi@On 


Authoritative Clwistianity. 


ia DECISIONS OF “THE SIX SOLE BCU- 
MENICAL COUNCILS: 
THAT IS, THE ONLY DECISIONS OF THE 
WHOLE CHURCH, EAST AND WEST, 
BEFORE ITS DIVISION IN THE 


NIN Ε ‘CENTURY, 
a τ Ὡς οὕ 


TRANSLATED, EDITED AND SOLD BY 


JAMES CHRYSTAL, PUBLISHER, 


255 Grove Street, Jersey City, N. J. 


July, 1891. 


δ Ξ- -- :8-:- en 
ee AN δ ἘΤΤΕΠΙΝ, 

+ + Printers,+ τ 
54 MONTGOMERY STREET, 


JERSEY CITY, N. J.,U S.A. 
(Neti ΤΙ ΕΣ δεος 


SCRIPTURE A. CHURCH AUTHORITY FOR THE SIX 
COUNCILS OF THE WHOLE CHURCH. 


SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY FOR THEM. 


Matt. XVIII, 17; ‘‘If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee 
as a heathen man and a publican.”’ 

I Tim. III., 15, ‘‘ The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of 
the truth.”’ 


CHURCH AUTHORITY. 


How they ave respected among the mass of those who claim to be Christians. 
Te 
AMONG ‘THE REFORMED COMMUNIONS. 

1. Zhe Voice of THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION /or them. 

“THOSE SIX COUNCILS WHICH WERE ALLOWED AND RECEIVED OF ALI, 
MEN,”’ (The Second Part of the Church of England Homily Against Peril of 
Idolatry which is in that Book of Homilies of which the Thirty-Fifth Article 
teaches that it ‘‘ doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for 
these times.’’) 

2. The AMERICAN PRESBYTERIANS on the Stx Ecumenical Councils. 


Pius the Ninth, Bishop of Rome, in an Encyclical Letter dated Sept. 13, 
1868, invited ‘‘all Protestants’’ to join the Roman Communion at the Vatican 
Council to be held A. D. 1869. 

‘““The two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States of America’’ by their Moderators, M. W. Jacobus and Ph. H. Fowler, 
replied in 1869, and among other things said, with reference to their refusal to 
participate in that Council of the Vatican, which began soon after, on Dec. 8, 
1869, as follows: 

“‘Tt is not because we reject any article of the Catholic Faith. We are not 
heretics * * * * . We regard as consistent with Scripture the doctrinal 
decisions of the first Stix Ecumenical Councils; and because of that consistency 
we receive those decisions as expressing our own faith. We believe the doctrines 
of the Trinity and Person of Christ, as those doctrines are set forth by the 
Council of Nice, A. D. 325; by that of Chalcedon, A. D. 451; and by that of Con- 
stantinople, A. D. 680.’’ Then follows an excellent summing up on the 
Trinity and on the Incarnation and Christ’s sole Mediatorship, which agrees 
with the Six Synods, and is found on page 5 below. Then they speak well of 
the Third Ecumenical Council. Below they condemn heresies condemned by 
necessary implication by the Six Councils; that is, Transubstantiation, the 
Roman doé¢trine of the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Adoration of the Host, the Wor- 
ship of the Virgin Mary, the Invocation of Saints, and the Worship of Images; 
and, towards the end, well say, 


“Loyalty to Christ, obedience to the Holy Scriptures, consistent respect for 
the early councils of the Church, and the firm belief that pure religion is the 
foundation of all human society, compel us to withdraw from fellowship with 
the Church of Rome.”’ 

The utterances of the CONTINENTAL REFORMED, ¢hat is, CONTINENTAL 
PRESBYTERIANS, as well as of the LUTHERANS. 

The Declaration of Thorn approves the two Ecumenical Creeds, and the 
Confessions of the Six Ecumenical Councils. See pages 156, 157 below. 


3. As to the views of the LUTHERANS on the Doétrines of the Six Ecu- 
menical Councils, see further, below, pages 128 to 131. 


AMONG THE UNREFORMED COMMUNIONS. 
fs 
How the GREEK CHURCH commemorates them. 


“Be mindful, Ὁ; Lord * * * * of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Six 
Synods, the First of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Holy Fathers in Nicaea; 
the Second of the One Hundred and Fifty in Constantincple; the Third of the 
Two Hundred in Ephesus; the Fourth of the Six Hundred and Thirty in Chal- 
cedon,’’ etc., (Diptychs in the Messina Manuscript, of A. D. 984, of the Greek 
Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem, in Assemani’s Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiae 
Universae. ) 


ΠΣ 
How the BISHOPS OF ROME formerly received them. 


In the Zzdiculum Pontificis or Profession of Faith of a Roman Pontiff after 
A. Ὁ. 680, the date of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and during Century VIII., 
those Bishops swore as follows: 

“T WILL KEEP UNMUTILATED, TO A SINGLE LONG MARK OVER A VOWEL, 
the holy Universal Councils also the Niczean, the Constantinopolitan, the first 
Ephesian, the Chalcedonian, and the second Constantinopolitan, which was cel- 
ebrated in the times of Justinian, a prince of pious memory. And together with 
them, and with equal honor and veneration, I promise to keep, TO THE VERY 
MARROW AND FULLY, the holy Sixth Council which lately assembled in the time 
of Constantine, a prince of pious memory, and of Agatho, my apostolic prede- 
cessor, and 1 promise in very truth to proclaim what they have proclaimed, and 
with mouth and heart to condemn what they have condemned. But if anything 
shall arise against Canonical Discipline, I promise to amend it, and to GUARD 
THE SACRED CANONS, and the constitutions of our Pontiffs, as DivINE AND 
CELESTIAL MANDATES.”’ 

The Second Profession of Faith of a Bishop of Rome in the end of Century 
VII. andin Century VIII., as given in the Dazly Book of the Roman Pontiffs, 
after a full and excellent confession of dodtrine, reads thus: 

‘““Wherefore, whomsoever or whatsoever the holy Six Universal Councils 
have cast off, we also smite with a like condemnation of anathema. But whom- 
soever or whatsoever the same Six Holy Councils received, we, as sharers of the 
right faith, receive, and, with the same reverence, venerate with mouth and 
heart.”’ 

This language is general and absolute. It excepts nothing. 


AUTHORITATIVE CHRISTIANITY, 


—S = Φ΄-Φ.-- α--.---------ςς 


THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL; THAT IS, THE FIRST COUNCIL 
OF THE WHOLE CHRISTIAN WORLD, WHICH WAS 


HELD A. D. 325 AT NICAEA IN BITHYNIA. 


es CD 


WHICH CONTAINS ALL ITS UNDISPUTED REMAINS IN GREEK AND 
ENGLISH; THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. 


— BY— 


ἘΠ τ = ὉΣΤΕ Si ΚΑΤ, 4.2. 


“Tf he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a 
publican. Verily Tsay unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall 
be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shalt be loosed 
in heaven.’’—Matt. XVIIL., 17, 18. 


Christ's utterance to the whole body of His Apostles, not to one of them alone; and 
through them to their successors the sound God-alone worshipping, anti-creature invoking 
and antiimage worshipping Bishops (and to no idolatrous Bishops, who cannot be saved, (/. 
Cor. VI., 9, 10; Gal. V., 19, 20, 21,and Rev. XN T., 8); and to sound Bishops only He has prom- 
ised His Holy Spirit “‘ forever’’ to guide them into all ‘‘truth,’’ (John Y/V., 16, 17; John XVT., 
73); with whom He has promised to be in teaching not for one age only but “ always, even 
unto the end of the world. Amen,’ (Matt. XX VJ//., 79, 20); and only where they govern 
according to the VI. Synods in all things, is the Church now, in the full sense, as in the 
Apostles’ days, ‘‘the pillar and ground of the truth,” (/. Tim. ///., 75). And no other than 
they have any right to teach and rule; for the decisions of those Synod, depose all others. 


July, 1891. 


Sold to Subscribers at $3.00 a Volume; to others at $4.00. 


Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1801, by 
JAMES CHRYSTAL, 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, 
at Washington, D. C. 


Right of translation reserved. 


~~ 


Pes ES 


Putnam Sv. 120 


< oe . τ 


DEDICATION OF THIS VOLUME 
—tTo— 
THE TWO GREAT ENGLISH-SPEAKING NATIONS, 
WHO AMIDST MANY FAULTS AND FAILINGS, 
HAVE NEVERTHELESS FOR CENTURIES BEEN ZEALOUS TO PERIL 
LIFE AND TREASURE FOR THE CHIEF TRUTH OF THE 
CHRISTIAN RELIGION THAT ALI, WORSHIP 
IS PREROGATIVE TO GOD ALONE 
τ ἀν 10): 
FOR WHICH HE IN RETURN HAS GIVEN THEM VICTORY ΟΝ 


FIELD AND FLOOD, AND VAST EMPIRE AND 


WEALTH AND ALL, BLESSINGS. 


MAY THEY NOT DEGENERATE AND LOSE THEM. 


oa et 


(366331. 


lege lenleyelGIa, 


Ours is an age of agitation of inquiry, and of sifting; aye, of 
changes, some for the better, others for the worse. The agitations 
have reached even the Greek communion, and some at least in it are 
growing weary of the abuses, of the superstitions, and of the idolatry 
and creature-worship of the middle ages. To some extent the same 
is true of the Roman Communion, though its strong government, like 
that of the Orientals, represses the outward manifestation of dissent. 
In the Nestorian Communion, and in that of the Monophysites, there 
are some few signs of a leaning, on the part of some at least, to Or- 
thodoxy. In the Protestant world the agitation is widespread, and 
the changes are many. In the Anglican Communion especially the 
old foundations are broken up, and we see three parties at least in its 
pale, instead of the old High and Low: 

1. A party professing to hold to the Trinity, the Atonement, to 
the truth that God alone is to be worshipped, and to the other tenets 
of its Reformed faith; and, more or less, to the Six Synods. 

2. A distinctly idolatrizing, creature-worshipping and Roman- 
izing party; and so an Anti-Six Synods party; 

3. A distinctly infidelizing party; and, perhaps, we may add, 

4. A distinétly Methodistic party or parties, who are united in 
the grievous error of putting feeling for faith, denying the necessary 
connection of regeneration with baptism, and making the rebirth to 
be merely a quickening of the Holy Ghost in the heart in non-infant 
years, and that without any baptism at all. This heresy has become 
more prevalent since the ancient, and still rubrical dipping has been 
laid aside, and with it that baptismal emersion, which the ancients 
deemed the rebirth itself (*). Asa result of such errors of ignorance, 
which alas! dominate our land, of the fifty-five millions of Protestants 
in this land only about thirteen millions are regarded as members of 
any Church, and millions of them are without anything that is called 
baptism, and crowds of them are daily dying unbaptized, and without 
hope. Rome’s forces in the fight are united; but those of Protestant- 
ism are fighting endlessly among themselves. 


(*). So St. Justin the Martyr, soon after the Apostles, in Se@tions LXXIX. 
and LXXX. of his first Apology; Hippolytus on the Holy Theophany, Section 
X.; Cyril of Jerusalem, Lecture XX., Chapter IV., etc. See Chrystal’s Wistory 
of the Modes of Baptism, pages 59, 60, 62, 63, 70 and 71. 


11 Preface. 


The Anglican Communion, owing to the terrible sin of its mainly 
married episcopate, who shirk their bounden duties to depose heretics 
and to excommunicate them, and owing also to the too little power 
in their hands to enforce any dodtrine or discipline or rite, and owing 
to the temporal power’s interference with sound men, is a wreck, and 
multitudes of its people have left it for other forms of Protestantism, 
and some for Rome. The Lutherans and the Reformed on the Con- 
tinent of Europe have, in places, sunk so low as to deny the Trinity, 
the Atonement, and other fundamental doctrines of the Faith. In 
our own country and in England non-Episcopal Protestantism has 
been rent into about one hundred and thirty differing and warring 
sects, some of them holding to much of Orthodox truth, while others 
like the opponents of infant-baptism, the Universalists, and the Anti- 
Trinitarians are in fact enemies of Christ and of his Church and his 
Religion. 

This book and this series are an Irenicon and a Guide to Ecu- 
menical Orthodoxy at the same time. 

We begin with this volume of Nicaea which contains all its 
Genuine Documents. 

It will be followed in due time, if means be given us to publish 
with, by another volume or volumes which will contain, 


1. The matter on Nicaea, which has been doubted by some; and 
2. That which is confessedly spurious. 


Probably there will be two or three more volumes on Nicaea; one 
of which will contain information and references on its Twenty 
Canons; and that, or another volume on Nicaea, will contain a Dis- 
sertation on the Attempt of Rome in the Fifth Century to obtain Ap- 
pellate Jurisdiction over the provinces of Latin Africa and the resist- 
ance of Carthage and its suffragans to that attempt at usurpation. 

One volume of Nicaea will contain another long Dissertation on 
the meaning of the following remarkable words in the Creed of Nicaea, 
which have so engaged the attention of Theologians: 

‘“ The Universal and Apostolic Church anathematizes those who say 
that ~*  * © the Son of God ἘΠΕ was nor bejore ἘΠ τος 
born.’’ 

In that Dissertation an account will be given of the differences 
among the Ante-Nicene and some later Christian writers, who, while 
holding the Orthodox tenet that the Logos is co-eternal and consub- 


Preface. 111 


stantial with the Father, nevertheless differed as to whex He was 
born out of the Father; some, like Origen and Athanasius and the 
Alexandrian School after them, asserting that He was eternally born 
out of the Father; whereas, others, like St. Justin the Martyr, St. 
Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, and seemingly all the Ante-Nicene 
writers outside of the jurisdiction of Alexandria held that He was 
born out of Him, not eternally, but only just before the worlds were 
made and to make them. St. Zeno of Verona, in the Post Nicene 
period, held that view as we shall see. St. Theophilus of Antioch, 
in accordance with this doctrine, teaches that the consubstantial 
Logos was eternally in the Father, that is that He was the Endia- 
thetic Logos till just before the worlds were made, when to make 
them He was born out of Him, and so became the Prophoric Logos, 
that is the Borne-Forth Logos. Yet, whether “-xdiathetic, that is 
within the Father, or Prophoric, that is Borne-Forth out of Him, He 
was eternally co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father. So that 
both parties held that He is no creature, but very and eternal God. I 
will endeavor to give in full every Ante-Nicene passage which repre- 
sents St. Theophilus’ doctrine, and to quote St. Zeno of Verona after 
Nicaea. An account of Origen’s opinions on that matter and of St. 
Athanasius’ will be added. 


Another Dissertation in one of the volumes on Nicaea will treat 
of the differences among the ancient Christians as to whether God 
has a body or not; and passages from them on it will be quoted; as, 
for instance, Tertullian will be quoted for it, and Socrates against it; 
and an account will be given of the difficulty between St. Theophilus 
of Alexandria, and the majority of his monks on that theme, and of 
the variance on it between St. Epiphanius and St. Theophilus, and 
afterwards between them and John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constan- 
tinople. We will, in the same Dissertation, treat of that question as 
bearing on the teaching of the Nicene Creed that the Consubstantial 
Logos has actually come ‘‘out of the Father, that is out of the sub- 
stance of the Father, * * * very God out of very God.’’ We 
will inquire also in that connection whether any of the Six Ecumen- 
ical Synods have decided any thing on such matters. 


Of course the first volume of any set like this must contain 
much preliminary and explanatory matter. But when we come to 
the Third Ecumenical Council, the Fourth, the Fifth, and the Sixth, 


iv Preface. 


the Acts, that is Minutes, will make up a large part of the volumes. 
The Minutes of the First and the Second are lost, though happily 
their Decisions remain. 

And we hope that the Dissertations and the Notes and Prefatory 
Matter found in the different volumes of the series will prove both, 
acceptable and useful to every Orthodox reader. And for the success’ 
of our effort to put the Sole Decisions of the whole Church before 
the Christian public I ask the sympathy, the prayers, the contribu- 
tions, and the active co-work of every soul who is true and loyal to 
Christ and His Holy Church. 


In this volume, in the first two chapters, I have shown how far 
the different Communions, West and East, claiming to be Christian, 
stand committed to the Six Synods and to their Dodtrines, Discipline 
and Rites. 

In Chapter III. I show that Arianism was a distinét return to 
the fundamental pagan and anti-Christian errors of Polytheism and 
Creature-Worship; and that St. Athanasius and St. Epiphanius and 
others of the Orthodox so regarded it. I have quoted quite a num- 
ber of passages from the works of some of the Orthodox to that 
effect. If space permitted, I could give more from others. 


In Chapter IV., I have given an account, from the original 
sources, of the Council itself. 


Chapter V. contains important Documents which bear on the 
Synod. 

Chapter VI. treats of its Synodal Letter; 

Chapter VII. of its Creed; and 

Chapter VIII. of its Canons. 

The Letter, the Creed, and the Canons, are given in Greek and 
English. The indexes follow. 


I can not close this Preface without expressing my heartfelt and 
deep gratitude to Almighty God that he allows me to put to press 
this first volume of a series of perhaps twelve or fifteen volumes, 
which I began, at least, as far back as 1864, and on which I have 
labored in winter’s cold and summer’s heat, till my hair and beard 
are growing gray in my task for God. Of late years my income, never 
large, has become so small that but for the aid of kind friends, to 
whom I here express my warmest thanks, I could not publish even 
this one volume. ‘Two or three volumes, comprising all the inesti- 


Preface. v 


mably precious A¢ts, that is Minutes, of the Third Ecumenical Coun- 
cil, so valuable to every theological student, have been ready for the 
press for years. God move the hearts of His servants to publish 
them! They are the first translation of them allinto English. I pray 
God the Father that I may be spared by His mercy for his adorable 
Son’s sake to see all the English of the Six Councils in print, and 
enlightening and blessing his people before I die. 


Before closing, I ought, in justice to the donors to the Pudblica- 
tion Fund for the Six Councils to state that for all opinions expressed 
in this work I alone am responsible. As the donors belong to differ- 
ent parties in the Anglican Communion, some of them would differ 
from some of them as they differ from each other. 


I here gratefully acknowledge my great indebtedness to their aid. 


They are: 

RIGHT Εν. HENRY CODMAN POTTER, Ὁ. D., LL. D., Bishop of New York. 
RIGHE REV. WELT TAM PARED, D:D), Ly. Dio) 2 Bishop of Maryland. 
RicHT REV. BOYD VINCENT, D. D.,----=- πλέονες Bishop of Southern Ohio. 
REV. MORGAN DIX, D. D., D.C. πο Gea it Na a ΑΝ ὅπ: York City. 
REv. JOHN W. BROWN, 9, 0 Di) Dae ie Ξὸ Ξε Ἐπὶ ΞΕ Ἐπ το τος Ly mes 
πεν OEIN: HENRY HOPING 7556. Dives 52) ies τ πὸ igt 
Revs PARIOER: MORGAN: 1, Dies eh oy en ον 
FRE iS Dae ἘΠῚ Gr PRL Eat he, Ie Se ee ee ee τι κε 
REV. CHAUNCEY B. BREWSTER, --------_-__---.--. Brooklyn, New York. 
ΒΕ cals her CF ΙΕ ΉΝ, πεσε τ ee τ΄ εἰ τ as 
REV. NEWION SEANGER, D:D. 2222 τ τ νον Vork City: 


Ae View Git ΘΕΈ ΕΑΝ ΘΕ ACE TOR: θ᾽ Tas Se et ee SKC 
REV CORNE EIU S B25 MOrT HDs. te so Shee tet “ « 
REv. JAMES MULCHAHEY, D. D.,---- SSN li ee ne « cn) 6k 
Rev. ARTHUR BROOKS, oe ees ee Can pte RO te ““ « «( 
ἘΝ Εν ΘΛ ΠΕ ΒΕΤ ἘΠΕ ΤΥ Ἐν μα πολ oP τύ το το ΤΩΝ τ 
Ἐπ ΘΟ ΕΠ ΠΗ ΕΣ ἘΠ εν: ἘΞ ποτε στ πο ει Cran Pen Gh στ τῆν τι 
Rovere ELT P< ΛΟ ΣΕΙ͂Ο BRON Nees oe ae es ee τ ΣΟ ἡ rc ait 
sya LOMA SH MG ue Ey ΝΕ ΒΘ 1) euT) ie eas oe Leal Des Waly aan eer Ga 
Reeve: WINCHES DER ΘΝ ἢ) ΤΣ στ“ ee ee “ eae Luce 
Mr. FRANCIS GURNEY DU PONT, ---------------------- Wilmington, Dé1. 
Mr. JAMES FLEMMING, Esq., Counselor-at-Law-------_- Jersey City, N. J. 


I deem it just to myself, and necessary, to add also that I have 
aimed in all my expressions to follow closely and stri@ly. 
1. All the Doctrine, Discipline Rite and Custom of the Six Ecu- 


menical Councils; and, 
2. Where they have not spoken, to follow just as closely and 


vi Preface. 


just as strictly, according to Vincent of Lerins’ saying, all in Doc- 
trine, Discipline, Rite and Custom which has been held ‘‘ Always, every 
where, and by all.’’ ‘Those two principles condemn the Host Wor- 
ship, the image worship, the invocation of creatures, and all the other 
errors on Do¢trine, Discipline, Rite and Custom, of Rome, and of the 
Orient, as well as all the heresies of those so-called Protestant writers 
and speakers, who are really infidelizing and anarchizing, and pro- 
test much oftener against the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and its 
great doctrines enshrined in the Decisions of the Six Councils, and 
against what is best and most primitive in the Anglican Reformation 
of the sixteenth century, than they do against the soul-damning 
idolatry of Rome, and the equally soul-destroying unbelief of the 
Christ-rejecting and Christianity-hating Jews. 


Contents. 


vii 


TABLE OF CONTENTS OF 


ΤΗΙΘ WwW OLUNE. 


PREFACE, . ; : : ; : ; : PAGE I-VI. 


ΠΟΘΙ ΕΘΝ CONLENTS, << - ᾿ : : PaGE VII. 


CHAPTER. 1. 


A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE SIX ECUMENICAL COUNCILS OF THE 


UNDIVIDED CHURCH. 


SECTION 1.—What they are, 

Their Authority and Ree io in diferent 
Communions, 

SECTION 2.—How their Doctrines are tevarded by ΤΠ πὸ 
rian Scholars, 

SECTION 3.—How they compare in Tainaetaace with float 
Councils and the mere Opinions of Indi- 
vidual Writers, 

SECTION 4.—What part of them has peel ἘΞ: into 
English, : 

SECTION 5.—Their value to the mere ΠΣ ἘΠ ἘΝ ἘΠΕ 
to the man who does not profess Chris- 
tianity, 

SECTION 6.—To what extent (hen Aas are eit antl ion 
oughly known, 

SECTION 7.—Prospectus of this work, 


PAGE. 


10 
II 


‘vill Contents. 


CHAPT HR ΤΠ 


A FULLER ACCOUNT AS TO HOW FAR THE SIX ECUMENICAL SYNODS 
ARE RECEIVED IN DIFFERENT COMMUNIONS EAST AND WEST; 
AND AS TO HOW FAR THEIR TWO CREEDS ARE IN 
USE AMONG THEM. INCIDENTAL INFORMA- 
TION IS GIVEN AS TO THE USE OF 
LOCAL SYMBOLS ALSO. 


PAGE, 
Division I.—As to the Reception of the Six Ecumenical 
Councils in the ORIENTAL COMMUNIONS, 
and as to the Use of their two Creeds there, 21 
The Orientals on the Filioque and on the Six 
Synods, : ; 21 
SECTION 1.—Symbols used in the Gores Sane The 
two Ecumenical Creeds, : : : 24 
SUBSECTION 1.—That is, the Creed of Nicaea, . : Ἵ 25 
And the Creed of I. Constantinople, . : 25 
SuBSECTION 2.— How the Greeks stand as to Local Symbols 
of thegastan: ; : 26 
SUBSECTION 3.—And as to Local Symbols oe tae West; that 
is, as to the Apostles’ Creed, ; 26. 5 
And the Athanasian, 4 . 32-36 
What the Greek Church should ἐν now, . 36-42 
Additional Reference to the Oriental Com- 
munions, : : : : : ; 42 
SECTION 2.—T'HE NESTORIANS on the two Ecumenical 
Creeds, on Local Creeds, and on the Third 
Ecumenical Council, and on the ‘Three 
Ecumenical Councils after it, . : . 42-50 
Their errors, ibid, . : : . 42-50 


SECTION 3.—THE MONONPHYSITE CoPTS AND Aue Ssintans 
on the two Ecumenical Creeds, on Local 
Creeds, and on the Six Ecumenical 

Councils, : : : : : +) ΟΞ Ἢ 

Their errors, ; . 50-54 


Contents. ix 


SECTION 4.—THE MONoPHYSITE ARMENIANS on the two 
Ecumenical Creeds, on Local Creeds, and 
on the Six Ecumenical Councils. Their 
errors, ἢ ς , : : : 547i 


SECTION 5.—The SyRIAN JACOBITES, that is MONOPHY- 
SITES on the two Ecumenical Creeds, on 
Local Creeds, and on the Six Ecumenical 
Councils; their errors, : : . FEBS 


Division II.—As to the Reception of the Six eae 
Synods, their two Creeds, their doctrine 
and discipline, in the WESTERN COMMUN- 
IONS, and as to the use of Local Creeds 


among them, . : i : : : 85 

SECTION 6.—Among THE LATINS, : 85-90 
Their errors; the proper course fen the racigs 

to pursue, and for the whole West, . . 85-95 


SECTION 7.—As to the Reception of the two Ecumenical 
Creeds; Local Creeds, that is the Apostles’ 
and the Athanasian, and the Reception of 
the Doctrine and the Discipline of the Six 
Ecumenical Councils in the ANGLICAN 
ComMuUNION. Its faults, ; : . 95-128 
Its present duty, . : : 102-128 


SECTION 8.—How THE LUTHERANS regard the two Ecumen- 
ical Creeds, the Six Ecumenical Councils, 
and their Doctrine and Discipline; and Local 
Creeds, that is the so-called Apostles’ and 
the Athanasian, : d : ὁ 128-130 
Their Faults and present Duty, 128-130 


SECTION y.—How THE REFORMED regard the two Ecumen- 
ical Creeds; the Six Ecumenical Synods, 
and their Doctrine and Discipline; and local 
Creeds, that is the so-called Apostles’ and 
the so-called Athanasian; and their utter- 
ances as to Proper Deference to the 
Pathersn |; : : 5 : : 131-162 


Χ Contents. 


SECTION 9; PART I.—A Synopsis, that is, A SUMMARY of 
their UTTERANCES, on THE TWO ECUMEN- 
ICAI, CREEDS; that is, 
i. On THAT OF /THH 213; 
2. On THAT OF THE 150, ς 
SECTION 9; PART II.—A ΘΎΝΟΡΒΙΒ, that is, a SUMMARY of 
UTTERANCES OF THE REFORMED on LOCAL 
CREEDS; ἃ : ἘΝ Wes ; 
1. On the Western or Roman, 
2. On the Athanasian, : ; 
SECTION 9; PART III.—FULLER QUOTATIONS FROM CER- 
TAIN CONFESSIONS OF THE REFORMED, 
OR OF PARTS OF THE REFORMED, on the 
two Ecumenical Creeds, that is, on the 
Symbol of the First Ecumenical Council, 
and on that of the Second, and on two 
local Creeds, that is, on the Western Creed, 
which is commonly called the Apostles’, 
and on the so-called Athanasian, 


(1). From the French Confession, 

(2). From the Belgic, that is, Holland, 

(3). From the Bohemian, 

(4). From the Agreement of Seudenite 

(5). From the Margrave’s Confession, or 
Confession of John Sigismund, 
Elector of Brandenburg, : 

(6). From the Leipsig Colloquy in the 
year 1631, : 

(7). From the Declaration of ano: 

Augusti on the last two documents, 


A remark of doubtful meaning in the Bohe- 
mian Confession, 

Degeneracy of many of the Reformed in for- 
saking much of the Orthodox and funda- 
mental do¢trines of the Six Councils which 
are embodied in their Confessions, 


131 
131 


132 
132 


133 
134 
136 


137 
139 


140 
141 
143 
145 


145 


146 


Contents. xi 


PAGE, 
Augusti’s testimony as to that fact, and his 

lament over it, : : ὲ : 146 
Sad and absurd results in England and in 
America, and elsewhere, of the mad op- 
position to the use of the two Ecumenical 
Creeds, and of the neglect or utter rejec- 
tion of the Do¢trines and Discipline and 

Rites of the Six Ecumenical Councils, . 147 


Utterances of John W. Nevin, Ὁ. D., Ger- 
man Reformed, in favor of Creeds, and 
against the patrons of ‘‘the Anti-Creed 
heresy,’’ 148 
SECTION 9; Part IV. Be ρου ions irom τες of ἐς 
Reformed on the Six Ecumenical Synods, 
and on the Reception of their Norms of 
Definition on the two Ecumenical Creeds; 
that is, on that of the First Ecumenical 


Synod and on that of the Second, . : 149 
(ι) Prom! the Helvetic; = -: : : : 149 
(2). From the Scotch, ᾿ : A ἃ [51 
(3). From the Tetrapolitan, ; : ‘ 154 
(4). From the Leipzig Colloquy, : : 156 
(5). From the Declaration of Thorn, 156 
(6). From the Westminster, : : : 157 


Summary as to how far the Presbyterians 
agree with the doctrines of the Six Ecu- 
menical Synods, : : 158 
SECTION 9; Part V.—Quotations from the Reformed on 
Proper Deference for such utterances of 
the Fathers as are in agreement with 


Scripture, 158 
Introductory remarks ἘΝ πε dnthor, erations 

and distin¢tions, : 158 
Utterances of the ΠΣ on dererence τὸ 

Scriptural opinions of Fathers, : 158-160 
(1.) From the Helvetic Confession, . 160 


(2.) From the Gallican Confession, . 166 


Xii Contents. 


Need among the Reformed of Church 
Authority as set forth in the Six Synods, 

Count Dmitry Tolstoy’s testimony as to the 
causes of the ruin of Protestantism in 
Lithuania, 


CHAPTER] Um: 


ARIUS AND HIS HERESIES. 


Authorities and References, : : : : ἢ 
SECTION 1.—Arius, 

SECTION 2.—His Character ἜΠ πο ἐμ Ἀν 
SECTION 3.—His Talents, 

SECTION 4.—His Pride of Intellect, 


SECTION 5.—Cheerful Aspect of the Church ie before the 
Arian Heresy arose, 


C 


SECTION 6.—The Beginning of the Arian Controversy, 
Arius’ Heresies, 
SECTION 7.—Arius’ own account of his Heresies, 
Other old Arian Statements, ; 
SECTION 8.—Persecutions, by the Arians, of the Orthodox, 
and wide spread of the Heresy. St. Athan- 
asius brands Arius’ Heresy as resulting in 
Polytheism and Creature-Worship, 


Thirteen Passages from St. Athanasius against 
Arian Polytheism and Creature Worship, 
eucy, : - : : : : ; 

St. Epiphanius and other Fathers to the same 
effect; Epiphanius, six passages, 

Lucifer of Cagliari, two passages, 


Faustin of Rome, two passages, 


PAGE, 


161 


ΤΟῚ 


Contents. ΧΙ 


PAGE, 
Soreness of the Arians when charged with 


Polytheism and Creature-Worship, ‘ 252 
SECTION 9. —Spread of Creature-Service the result of Arian 
teaching, : ν . ὃ ; : 253 
CHAP TER: PV, 


THE SYNOD ITSELF. 


PAGE. 


SECTION 1.—Events just before it, . Ἷ 256 
SECTION 2.—When did it meet ? : : ὃ ; 258 
SECTION 3.—In what building did it meet, 258 
SECTION 4.—Number of Bishops who were present αἰ τὰς 

Council of Nicaea, : : ξ : 259 
SECTION 5.—Whence they came, : 259 
SECTION 6.—The Disputations at Nicaea τος the Synod 

met, ; ‘ : : : : : 260 
SECTION 7.— Who presided ? : 261 


SECTION 8.—The Acts of the First Suton οἱ τς Ἐς 
World, A. D. 325, which was held at 
Nicaea) >. : : : 267 
SECTION 9.—On what topics ΤΉ ΞΙ decided : 268 
SECTION 10.—Why should not the gathering of the eae: 
tles at Jerusalem, which acquitted Peter, as 
told in Acts XI., be deemed the First Ecu- 
menical Synod, and that in Acts XV., 
which vindicated the claim of Gentile Chris- 
tians to be free from the Mosaic Law, be 
deemed the Second, in which case Nicaea 
would be reckoned the Third ? : : 269 


CHAPTER] Vi: 
SOME DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COUNCIL, BUT BEARING ON IT. 
SECTION 1.—A Synodical Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of 


Alexandria, and his Synod, to Alexander, 
Bishop of Constantinople, ; : : 270 


χὶν 


Contents. 


SECTION 2.—An Encyclical Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of 
Alexandria, to the Bishops of the Univer- 
sal Church everywhere, ἃ 

SECTION 3.—An Oration of the Emperor Constantine Ἢ ‘ie 
Synod of Nicaea on Peace, : 

SEecTION 4.—An Oration of the Orthodox Eustathius, Bishop 
of Antioch, in the Nicene Synod, which is 
addressed to the Emperor Constantine, 


CHAPTER Wie 


THE SYNODAL EPISTLE OF NICAEA. 


SECTION 1.—Its contents, . : ς: 


(A). 


(B). 


(C). 


(D). 


Condemnation of ἜΣ and hic rete: 


sies, and of two Arian Egyptian 
Bishops, 


Its Decision on the ΝΕ δα Ἐν 


and on Meletius and his partisans; 
the lesson to us, 


The Decision on the Basch τ 
Authority given by the Synod to the 


Bishop of Alexandria to determine 
the Pask Lord’s Day. Differences 
afterwards among those who held to 
Nicaea, as to what Lord’s Day 
should be kept as Easter. Final 
Agreement of all, and disappearance 
of Fourteenth-Day Sects. Folly of 
some modern differences as to Easter, 


Vindication and commendation of Al- 


exander, Bishop of Alexandria, 


The Synodal Epistle in Greek, 
A translation of it from the Greek as given 


by Socrates, 


A translation of it from ee Greek as ee 


by Theodoret, 


PAGE. 


271 


271 


271 


PAGE. 
281 


281 


282 
286 


288 


293 
294 


295 


299 


Contents. 


CHAPTER VII. 
THE CREED OF NICAEA. 


SECTION 1.—T'wo Greek Texts of the Nicene Creed side by 
side, and their English translations: 5 
Differences between Athanasius’ text and Euse- 
bius’, : Z : 
SECTION 2.—A fuller account of the Variations in the Greek 
Text of the Nicene Creed, and an account 
of the variations in the Latin translations 
of it, Ξ é 
SECTION 3.—Gelasius of Cyzicus and his work on the Nicene 
Council; its unreliability, : : 
SECTION 4.—Did any Declarative Creed precede the Nicene? 
SECTION 5.—Does any author of a date anterior to Nicaea, 
A. D. 325, give airy Declarative Creed, 
SEecTION 6.—Is the Symbol of the 318 Holy Fathers of 
Nicaea an amplification of the Western 
Creed called the Apostles’ ? 


SECTION 7.—An Examination of the claim of Eusebius of 
Caesarea in Palestine, that in his Profession 
of- Faith, offered at Nicaea, he furnished 
the First Ecumenical Council the basis of 
the Nicene Creéd; and a consideration in 
this connection of the opinion of Valesius 
that Eusebius’ Profession.is the same as an 
Arian document which, Theodoret testifies, 
the Fathers of Nicaea tore up, 

SECTION 8.—What facts have reached us as to who were 
most active at Nicaea for the expression 
“ΟΕ THE SAME SUBSTANCE”’ (ὑμοούσιον), 
and against Arian CREATURE-SERVICE? . 

SECTION 9.—The most notable Terms which are found in 
the Creed of the First Ecumenical Council, 
but are not in the Profession of Faith pre- 


PAGE. 


334 


336 


376 


xvi Contents. 


sented by Eusebius of Caesarea; the reason 
for them, 


‘ : : : : 391 
SECTION 10.—The chief things in Eusebius of Caesarea’s 

Profession of Faith which are not in the 

Nicene Creed; why they were omitted a 
the Fathers of the Council, 394 
SECTION 11.—Who wrote the Symbol of the 318 of Nicaea? 396 
SECTION 12.—The Scripturalness of the Creed of Nicaea, 400 

SECTION 13.—On the inconsistent and hypocritical course of 

the Arian party in signing and afterwards 

rejecting those terms of the Nicene Creed, 

which teach the Consubstantiality of the 

Son with the Father; and in pleading that 

they rejected them because they are not in 

Scripture, while they used terms which are 
not in Scripture to express their heresy, - 401 

CHAPTER, VEL. 
THE XX. CANONS OF NICAEA. 

; PAGE. 
Only the first four Ecumenical Councils made Canons, ; 404 

Importance and Necessity of maintaining those Canons; sad 
results of trampling them under foot, 404 
What matter this set of works will contain on them, 405 
Whence we take the Greek text here given, : 405 
With what Greek text our English translation accords, : 405 
The XX. Canons of Nicaea, Greek and English, : 406-425 
HRRATA AND EMENDATIONS AND ADDITIONS, 426 
GENERAL INDEX, 431 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE, 469 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS, AND ἘΞ. Hepes 


476 


De Aa. 


CHAPTER I.—INTRODUCTION. 


A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE SIX ECUMENICAL COUNCILS OF THE 


UNDIVIDED CHURCH. 


CONTENTS, 
WHAT THEY ARE: 
z. Their authority and reception in different Communions. 


2. How their doétrines are regarded by Trinitarian Scholars. 


3. How they compare in importance with local Councils and 
the mere Opinions of Individual Writers. 


4. What part of them has been translated into English. 


5. Their value to the mere historic student, and to the man 
who does not profess Christianity. 


6. To what extent their Adis are well and thoroughly known. 


7. Prospectus of this work. 


THEY ARE: 
I.—NICAWA, A. Ὁ. 325. 


II.—FIRST CONSTANTINOPLE, A. Ὁ. 381. 
III.—EPHESUS, A. D. 431. 
IV.—CHALCEDON, A. D. 451. 

V.—SECOND CONSTANTINOPLE, A. Ὁ. 558. 
VI.—THIRD CONSTANTINOPLE, A. Ὁ. 680. 


bo 


Chapter 7. 


What are those Synods? What is their Authority and Reception ? 


1. They are the only Councils of the Catholic, that is Universal 
Church, which the learned men éf the Greek, the Latin, and the 
Anglican Communion agree to be binding. The Anglican rejects 
that of Nica, A. D., 787;: the Latin rejects some things in it 
and receives others; and the Greek rejects all Councils held in 
the West since the division of the Universal Church in the ninth 
century, as merely Western and local. But the Greek professes 
to receive the whole of the Six before the division; the Latin pro- 
fesses to receive them with the exception of some few of their canons, 
and the Anglican Church in the second part of the Homdly Against 
Peril of Idolatry, speaks of them as, ‘‘ Those Six Counciis which were 
ALLOWED AND RECEIVED OF ALL ΜῈΝ." Andits thirty-fifth Article 
states that the Book of Homilies, which contains it, ‘‘ doth contain a 
godly and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times, and therefore 
we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently 
and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.”’ 


Those three Communions contain about three-quarters of all who 
profess to be Christians; and their scholars agree (A) in regarding 
them as of Ecumenical authority, and binding. 


(B) Their scholars also agree that any later decision on dogma 
which contravenes them or any of them is 7so facto ERRONEOUS and 
NULL and VOID. 

(C) Their scholars agree that in accordance with Christ’s prom- 
ises of guidance by His Spirit to the Apostles and their successors in 
the Episcopate, those Six Councils had the special help of the Holy 
Ghost to guide them into truth; and most of them would regard their 
decisions as infallible. 

Such passages are Matthew xxviii., 19, 20; John xiv., 16, 17, 18, 
26; John xv., 26; and John xvi., 7-17; and Matthew VAI O17 ROE 
Compare I. Tim. 3, 16. 

The Lutheran and the Presbyterian reformers of the sixteenth 
century spoke in terms of respect of the decisions of the Six Ecumeni- 
cal Councils on the dogmas of the Trinity and of the Incarnation, and 
embodied them largely zz sense in their Formularies; though they 
would not of course receive their canons, at least not all of them. 
They did not, however, fully understand them, for in the sixteenth 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 3 


century they were not critically known. Hence Luther misunder- 
stood the ‘Third Ecumenical Synod and St. Cyril of Alexandria, 
and so did injustice to them both. Yet in our time as more accurate 
information has spread regarding them, one finds occasionally an 
utterance which contains much that is very good, though we can not 
agree with every sentiment in it. For instance, the New York 
Tribune of Saturday, September 11, 1869, has the following on a 
document which, as representing so large a body as it does, is 
quite important so far as showing, not entire, but a certain amount 
of respect for the Six Synods. I quote the whole of the Z7rzbune 
article; it is as follows: 


‘(moe AMERICAN PRESBYTERIANS AND THE ROMAN COUNCIL. 


“The two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in 
the United States, which met in this city last May, commissioned 
their Moderators to draft a reply to the Pope’s invitation to all 
Protestants to embrace the opportunity afforded by the approaching 
Council, to return to communion with the Roman Church. This 
reply has just been made public. Δ sets out by declaring that 
the Presbyterians are not heretics, because they recetve all the doc- 
trines contained in the Apostles Creed, and set forth by the first 
six general councils, Neither are they schismatics, for they 
believe in the true Catholic unity, recognize as members of the 
visible Church all who profess the true religion, and are willing 
to maintain communion with them provided they do not exact as 
a condition the profession or performance of anything contrary to 
the Word of God. ‘They cannot consent, however, to participate 
in the deliberations of the Council, or comply with the Pope’s invita- 
tion, because they hold the following principles which the Church of 
Rome condemns: 1. That the Bible is the only rule of faith. 
2. The right of private judgment. 3. The universal priesthood 
of believers. 4. That the Apostleship is not perpetual, that modern 
prelates have no authority to teach or rule the Church, and that the 
Bishop of Rome has no valid claim to supremacy, Christ alone being 
the head of the Church. ‘As the Church of Rome,’ continues the 
reply, ‘excommunicates all those who profess the principles above 
enumerated ; as we regard these principles to be of vital importance, 
and intend to assert them more earnestly than ever; as God appears 
to have given His seal and sanction to these principles by making 
the countries where they are held the leaders of civilizatiou—the 
most eminent for liberty, order, intelligence, and all forms of private 
and social prosperity—it is evident that the barrier between us and 
you is, at present, insurmountable.’ The document also contains 


4 Chapter ἢ 


a temperate protest against the doctrines of transubstantiation and 
the sacrifice of the mass, the adoration of the host, the power of 
judicial absolution, the grace of orders, purgatory, the worship of the 
Virgin Mary and of images, the invocation of Saints, the do¢trine of 
reserve and of implicit faith and the consequence of withholding 
the Scriptures from the people, etc., and concludes as follows: 
‘While loyalty to Christ, obedience to the Holy Scriptures, con- 
sistent respect for the early Councils of the Church, and the firm 
belief that pure ‘‘religion is the foundation of all human society,”’ 
compel us to withdraw from fellowship with the Church of Rome; 
we, nevertheless, desire to live in charity with all men. We love: 
all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. We cordially 
recognize as Christian brethren all who worship, trust, and serve 
Him as their God and Saviour according to the inspired Word. And 
we hope to be united in heaven with all who unite with us on earth, 
_ in saying, ‘‘Unto Him who loved us, and washed us from our sins in 
His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God; to 
Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.’’—Rev. 1., 6. 


“ἢ «Signed in behalf of the two General Assemblies of the Presby- 
terian Church in the United States of America.’ 
M. W. JACOBUS, 
PH. H. FOWLER, 
Moderators.”’ 


The following is the part of the utterance of the American 
Presbyterians, which bears on the topic of the Six Councils. I 
give it with much of the context for fuller information, as I find 
it in the Presbyterian weekly, called The Evangelist, of New York, 
of September 9, 1869 : 


“ΤῸ PIUS THE NINTH—BISHOP OF ROME. 


‘‘In your Encyclical Letter, dated Sept. 13, 1868, you invite 
‘all Protestants’ to ‘embrace the opportunity’ presented by the 
Council summoned to meet in the City of Rome during the month of 
December of the current year, to ‘return to the one only fold,’ 
intending thereby, as the connection implies, the Roman Catholic 
Church. ‘That letter has been brought to the notice of the two 
General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 
of America. Those Assemblies represent nearly five thousand 
ministers of the gospel, and a still larger number of Christian 
congregations. 


‘‘ Believing, as we do, that it is the will of Christ that His 
Church on earth should be one; and recognizing the duty of doing all 
we consistently can to promote Christian charity and fellowship, we 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 5 


deem it right to say in few words why we cannot comply with | vur 
invitation, or participate in the deliberations of the approaching 
Council. 


“It is not because we reject any article of the Catholic faith. We 
are not heretics; we receive all the doctrines contained in the ancient 
Symbol known as the Apostles’ Creed ; we regard as consistent with 
Scripture the doétrinal decisions of the first Six Ecumenical Councils ; 
and because of that consistency we receive those decisions as expressing 
our own faith. We believe the doctrines of the Trinity and Person 
of Christ, as those doctrines are set forth by the Council of Nice, A. D. 
325, by that of Chalcedon, A. D. 451; and by that of Constantinople, 
4. D. 680. With the whole Catholic Church, therefore, we believe 
that there are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost; and that these three are one God, the same 
in substance, and equal in power and glory. 


‘““We believe that the Eternal Son of God became man by taking 
to Himself a true body and a reasonable soul; and so was, and 
continues to be, both God and man, in two distinct natures, and one 
Person forever. We believe that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is 
the Prophet of God, whose teachings we are bound to receive, and in 
whose promises we confide. He is the High Priest of our profession, 
whose infinitely meritorious satisfaction to divine justice, and whose 
ever prevalent inter~*ssion is the only ground of our justification and 
acceptance before God. He is our King, to whom our allegiance 
is due, not only as His creatures, but as the purchase of His blood. 
To His authority we submit; in His care we trust; and to His 
service we and all creatures in heaven and earth should be devoted. 


‘“We believe, moreover, all those do¢trines concerning sin, grace, 
and predestination, known in history as Augustinian. Those doc- 
trines were sanctioned by the Council of Carthage, A. D. 416; by 
a more general Council in the same place, A. D. 418; by Zosimus, 
Bishop of Rome, A. D. 418; and by the third Ecumenical Council at 
Ephesus, A. D. 431. Τὶ is impossible, therefore, that we should 
be pronounced heretical without including the whole ancient Church 
in the same condemnation. We not only ‘glory in the name of 
Christians, but profess the true faith of Christ, and follow the com- 
munion of the Catholic Church.’ Still further to quote your own 
words, ‘Truth must continue ever stable and not subject to any 
change.’ ”’ 


At the end of this document they refer to certain errors which 
are really condemned by the Six Councils. I italicize them : 


“Although this letter is not intended to be either objurgatory or 
controversial, it is known to all the world, that there are doctrines 


6 Chapter T, 


aid usages of the Church over which you preside, which Protest- 
ants believe to be not only unscriptural, but contrary to the faith 
and practice of the early Church. Some of those doctrines and 
usages are the following, viz.: The doctrine of transubstantiation and 
the sacrifice of the mass, the adoration of the host; the power ὁ. 
judicial absolution (which places the salvation of the people in the 
hands of the priests); the doctrine of the grace of orders, that is. 
that supernatural power and influence are conferred in ordination 
by the imposition of hands; the doctrine of purgatory; the worship 
of the Virgin Mary, the invocation of saints; the worship of tmages; 
the doctrine of reserve and of implicit faith, and the consequent 
withholding the Scriptures from the people, etc. 

‘So long as the profession of such doctrines and submission to 
such usages are required, it is obvious that there is an impassable 
gulf between us and the Church by which such demands are made. 


“While loyalty to Christ, obedience to the Holy Scriptures, con- 
sistent respect for the early Councils of the Church, and the firm 
belief that pure ‘religion is the foundation of all human society,’ 
compel us to withdraw from fellowship with the Church of Rome ; 
we, nevertheless, desire to live in charity with all men. We love all 
who love our Lord Jesus Christin sincerity. We cordially recognize 
as Christian brethren all who worship, trust and serve Him as their 
God and Saviour according to the inspired Word. And we hope to 
be united in heaven with all who unite with us on earth, in saying, 
‘Unto Him who loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own 
blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God; to Him be 
glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.’—Rev. LG: 

‘Sioned in behalf of the two General Assemblies of the Presby- 
terian Church in the United States of America. 

M. W. JACOBUS, 
Pu. H. FOWLER, 
Moderators.’” 


The issue of Zhe Evangelist for September 11, 1869, which con- 
tains the above, has the following editorial on it: 


““PRESBYTERIANS AND THE POPE. 


“We publish this week a letter addressed ‘To Prus THE NINTH, 
BisHop oF RoMB,’ inthe name of the two General Assemblies which 
met in this city last May. At the first blush the writing of such a 
letter might seem to be a superfluous labor, an officious and almost 
impertinent intrusion upon one who considers himself the head of the 
Christian World. But any such impression is removed by considering 
that the first motion did not come from us, but from him; and that 
however august a personage he may be, inasmuch as he has made a 


“1 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 


formal communication to us, it is on our part but civil to reply. One 
year ago the Pope sent forth a letter to all non-Catholic commiunions, 
inviting them to return to the one true fold—the bosom of the holy 
Catholic Church. Being thus addressed, we must either ignore the 
invitation, thereby treating it with contempt, or return an answer 
assigning reasons why it cannot be accepted. To the latter no 
objection can be offered, provided the answer is dignified and cour- 
teous, such as might proceed froma great Christian body, that respects 
itself, and knows what is due from those who assume to speak not 
only for one Church, but in some degree for the whole of Protestant 
Christendom. 

‘“On this point of courtesy we are happy to say there is no fault 
to find on either side. The letter of the Pope itself was not super- 
cilious or arrogant, except as arrogance may be implied in the 
assumption that he was the Bishop of the whole Christian world. 


But it was not offensive in language. On the contrary it was’ 
intended to be respectful and conciliatory. Doubtless it was written 
with the sincere hope and belief that it would be the means of 
recalling some wandering sheep to the Roman fold. 


‘To this patriarchal invitation, therefore, we now return our 
answer, and though Presbyterians are somewhat famous for a certain 
bluntness of speech which is not exactly the language of ecclesias- 
tical diplomacy, yet in this case we think it will be agreed that they 
are not outdone in courtesy by the Pope himself. ‘The letter does 
not contain a word of anger, or even of indignant rebuke. On the 
contrary, it is mild and gentle; yet its arguments are none the less 
weighty because conveyed in respectful language. Under the velvet 
glove we feel the grasp of the hand of iron. 


‘<’Thus temperate in phrase, and respectful in address, the letter 
presents a concise VINDICATION OF PROTESTANTISM—of the attitude 
of non-Catholic churches toward that vast ecclesiastical despotism, 
which boasts so much of its unity and its antiquity. So far from 
admitting its exclusive claims, an appeal to history is quite sufficient 
to demolish these lofty pretensions, and indeed to reverse the position 
of the parties, to show that WE ARE THE TRUE CATHOLICS, the 
true successors of the Apostles, the inheritors of their faith, their 
order, and their worship. ‘The letter shows very clearly, that we 
are neither heretics nor schismatics—neither erring from the truth, 
as taught in the Scriptures, nor rending asunder the body of Christ. 
We hold to the early faith in its simplicity and its integrity, before it 
was overlaid and smothered by the traditions of men. We believe 
in the Apostle’s creed, the most ancient symbol of Christian faith, 
and accept the decisions of the first six Ecumenical Councils as not 
inconsistent with the higher authority of the Word of God. 


‘‘Hence, we may claim justly that we are the true successors of 
the Primitive Church. We have a part in the inheritance of the 


8 Chapter I. 


saints. ‘The glorious company of martyrs belongs to us. We have 
the goodly fellowship of those who worshipped Christ in caves and 
catacombs. ‘The faith of Augustine was the faith of Calvin, and to 
no communion of modern times does that great name—the greatest 
of the fathers of the Church—so truly belong as to the Presby- 
terians of Scotland and America. 


‘*On the other hand, it is the Church of Rome which is the 
innovator on the ancient purity of faith and worship. By bringing 
in new doctrines unknown in the apostolic age; engrafting strange 
dogmas on the simple teachings of Christ; by its gorgeous worship, 
borrowed from Pagan temples and Jewish synagogues; and above 
all, by its monstrous assumption to be the only true Church, claim- 
ing supremacy and infallibility—setting up its head as the Vicar of 
Christ on earth, who has power to open and shut the kingdom of 
heaven—it has departed widely from the simplicity of the Church 
founded by Christ and His Apostles, and has earned the title of the 
Great Apostacy. So that when the Holy Father summons Protest- 
ants to return to ‘the one true fold,’ they may without offence 
respond by calling upon him, and upon all ‘who profess and call 
themselves Catholics,’ to return to a purer faith and a simpler worship. 

‘‘ With this introduction, we commend to our readers this truly 
Christian Letter, addressed to the Bishop of Rome, which may be 
taken as a model by all who wish to take part in the Romish con- 
troversy. It is a model of manly argument, of plain truth expressed 
with Christian frankness, and yet with courtesy, and even with 
tenderness. ‘This is the only way in which we can ever hope to 
reach our Roman Catholic brethren. It is not by denouncing or 
abusing them, or holding them up to ridicule or to public indigna- 
tion. Weare sorry to say that some of our Protestant advocates 
have gone to work in the wrong way. ‘They have been so belliger- 
ent in tone, and have waged war with such relentless severity, that 
they have put every Romanist at once on the defensive. ‘Thus they 
have alienated those whom they sought to win, have disgusted and 
offended where it was their duty to conciliate ; and done no good to 
the cause of Protestant Christianity.” 


The WVestorians receive only the first two of the Six Ecumenical 
Councils ; the A/onophysites only the first three. 


So much on ¢hetr Authority and Reception. 


1. How are their doctrines regarded by Trinitarian scholars ? 


Answer.—All Trinitarian scholars, Greek, Latin, and Protestant, 
profess at least loyalty to their doctrines on the Trinity against 
Arianism and Macedonianism; and on the Incarnation and the two 
natures in Christ against Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Monophysi- 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 9 


tism, and Monothelism. No other assemblies ever held bear such 
widespread and general authority in what professes to be of the Chris- 
tian World. 


3. How do they compare in importance with local councils and the 
opinions of individual writers ? 


Answer.—They are, of course, of vastly greater importance 
than the decisions of mere local synods, or of individual writers, 
some of which they approve as orthodox and others of which they 
condemn as heretical. They do, indeed, profess to follow the written 
historic transmission of the Fathers from the beginning, but expressly 
brand as heretical some peculiar and individual, or merely local 
opinions, of some at first deemed Fathers by some—as, for instance, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia—and impliedly condemn some opinions and 
actions of others. 


The Six Synods stand vastly above all other Christian writings 
except the Bible, on whose teachings the bulk of Christians—in 
A. D. 680, the date of the last of them—held they alone had un- 
erringly and authoritatively decided with the inspiration of the 
Holy Ghost. 


4. What of them has been translated into English ? 


Answer.—Probably not one-tenth part of the entire matter in 
them. 


5.  Whatts thetr value to the mere historic student, and to the man 
who does not profess Christianity ? 


(A). ‘Tuey show what alone the Universal Church recognized 
as ITS AUTHORITATIVE DECISIONS in the period of the UNDIVIDED 
CHURCH—in other words what ECUMENICALLY DECIDED Doétrine, 
Discipline and Rite was, as distinguished from what was merely /ocal. 


When a Christian went from the East to the West, or from the 
West to the East, he would find some variety in local church cus- 
toms; but the faith as set forth in the Ecumenical Councils was ever 
the same, as were also the Universal Discipline and Rites, so far as 
ordered so to be by them. 


(B). They were the bond of union between all parts of the 
Church, so that he who received them was everywhere, East and 


10 Chapter 7. 


West, recognized as a Christian; whereas he who rejected them, or 
any of them, as did the Nestorian or the Monophysite, was because 
of that rejection cut off from the Universal Church and rejected by 
all, and that in accordance with Christ’s own teaching in Matthew 18; 
7 (A hs 


(C). So long as the Western Roman Empire lasted, as it did 
till A. D. 476, Ecumenical Councils were recognized by the State to 
such an extent that no bishop could hold any see or enjoy its tempor- 
alities till he had accepted them. And as late as the eighth century 
the Popes of Rome swore to receive and to maintain their dogmas 
and canons. And the State received their canons as. laws on Eccle- 
siastical matters. . 


The same was the case in the Eastern Empire till its fall, A. Ὁ. 
1453- 

The Christian Emperors obligated themselves to maintain them ; 
and, generally speaking, could not long hold their thrones without so 
professing. 


(D). ‘Till A. D. 787 all Christian history and great Christian 
events may be said to have revolved around them, as indeed they do 
to a great extent still. ‘They affect the law, the life and policy of 
Christian nations now; of some more, of some less. 


(EF). In projects for union among the great sundered parts of 
Christendom their reception has ever been made the first point. If 
any of them was rejected, union at once failed. 


6. To what extent are their acts well and thoroughly known ? 


Answer.—To a small extent only, though many bishops and 
clergy have a smattering of knowledge on their decisions. But the 
price of the originals is so high, owing to their being in Greek; or 
sometimes, parts of them, in a Latin translation only; or to their 
rarity; and so few of the clergy were ever adepts in Conciliar and 
Patristic Greek, and of those who were, so few can find time for 
study in a constant round of parish or teaching duties, that it is safe 
to say that not more than a third or a fourth or a tenth of the 
prelates of the Christian World, and not more than one-tenth or one- 
twentieth of the lower clergy of the different Communions have ever 
read through these basic Decisions of their Faith. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 11 


The majority of the prelates and clergy of the professedly 
Christian World do not even know what some of their Definitions 
are, and large numbers of them hold some of the very errors for 
which the Third Ecumenical Council justly deposed the creature-server 
Nestorius. ‘The density of the ignorance prevailing everywhere as to 
the decisions of that Universal Church which in Matt. 18, 17, Christ 
commands us to hear, under pain of being regarded ‘‘as a heathen 
man and a publican,’’ and the consequent prevalence of heresies 
opposed to it, are simply appalling, and call for prompt remedy by 
their publication. 


7. What-do we propose to do? Prospectus of this series, and 
what we ask of learned Christians. 

We propose to translate into English every scrap of the Acts, 
that is, to put it in plain words, every scrap of the AZinutes of the 
Six Ecumenical Councils, including, of course, all their Decisions 
and Canons, so that the reader may feel sure that he has ¢he whole 
of the Ecumenical Documents before him; in other words, an English 
Translation of the Entire Acts of the Six Ecumenical Synods, com- 
prising all the Decisions of the whole Church, East and West, before 


its Division in the ninth century. ‘Those Councils, as has been said, 
are : 
hy eNiezeas vas D325. 


Il. . First Constantinople, A. D. 381. 
Pere phesuS least: 

LV. ! Chalcedon’ A. D451: 

V. Second Constantinople, A. D. 553. 
VI. ‘Third Constantinople, A. Ὁ. 680. 


The Acts, that is the Minutes as we would say, of the first two 
are lost; but we have their official utterances; that is, a Synodal 
Epistle, a Creed, and Canons from each. 


We begin with the First Ecumenical Synod, and God willing, 
will give first, its genuine documents; secondly, the doubted matter 
ascribed to it; and thirdly, the spurious matter ascribed to it. 


The Acts of the third Ecumenical Synod are, for the most part, 
extant in the Greek original (1). The Fourth and the Sixth remain 


Note. P. E. Pusey, in his edition of the Works of St. Cyril of Alexan- 
dria, vol. vii., pt. i, Prefat., pages vii. and viii., tells us where some of them are. 


12 Chapter I. 


in the Greek. Ὑπὸ Fifth, so faras its Decisions are concerned, is still 
extant in the Greek; but much of the Acts exists only in a Latin 
translation, which is, however, very ancient. I have seen it said that 
in France, or in the whole world, of that Synod there were only two 
manuscripts known just before the French Revolution, and one of 
them is now lost. When we consider the fact that some parts of such 
all-important writings have perished in the original, owing to the 
dense ignorance and corruptions and idolatries of the Church in the 
middle ages, we are reminded of how near the Law of Moses, the 
law of the Israelitish Church, came to being utterly lost in its period 
of ignorance, corruptions and idolatry, as told us in 2 Kings, xxil., 
and in 2 Chronicles, xxxiv. Oh! that among the bishops of the 
Christian Church, its high-priests, ἀρχιερεῖς, to use a common 
Greek title of our time for bishops; and among Christian Emperors, 
and Kings, and Presidents, and Governors, and people, there may be 
as keen a sense of the due value and importance of these Hcumenical 
Decisions in their proper place which have been practically lost to 
most of them for many centuries, and as sincere and active and 
thorough obedience to them as there was in the pious high-priest, the 
reforming and restoring Hilkiah, and in the reforming and restoring 
and godly King Josiah, and in the reformers and restorers among the 
Jewish people, of the value and importance of their Church Law 
in its due place! God grant it, so far as it is right and wise. 


Then, as the renewed knowledge of their Law and obedience to it 
brought them the abolition of creature service and of image worship, 
the restoration of all their doctrine, discipline, rite and custom, and 
consequent blessing for both worlds; so the renewed knowledge of 
our Law, defined with the Christ-promised assistance of the Holy 
Ghost, and obedience to it, will bring Christians everywhere the 
abolition of creature service and of image worship, the healing of 
schisms, West and East, the restoration of all their primitive and 
Ecumenically-defined doctrine, discipline, rite and custom, and con- 
sequent blessing for both worlds. Then will the Universal Church 
be one again, East and West, and regain those vast portions of 
the earth, which she lost by violating the Decisions of those Six 
Councils; I mean those areas of Europe and Asia and Africa which 
yet groan under the yoke of the unbelieving Turk and Moor; and 
she will re-people them with Christians again. Then the Church of 
Holy Wisdom, at Constantinople, and so many hundreds of Churches 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 13 


and monasteries and nunneries and other Church property wrested 
from her by violence shall be restored, and shall echo again to prayer 
and chant to Christ; and the heavenly King shall have his own 
again, and the true Jehovah, triune and blessed, and none other 
than He, shall be invoked and worshiped. Amen, and Amen. 


After Niczea, we expect to put to press the Authentic Utterances 
of the Second Ecumenical Council, and other matter on it, in one 
volume; and then, or perhaps before, the Acts, that is the Minutes, 
of the Third Ecumenical Synod, the first of the Four whose Acts 
have reached us, which we have had ready for the press for years but 
cannot as yet publish owing to lack of funds. Can you not aid us in 
getting subscribers as well as by subscribing yourself? ‘The decisions 
of Ephesus deal with the vastly important questions of the Incarna- 
tion; the controversy as to worshipping both Natures of Christ; and 
incidentally and yet clearly as to the sin of Relative Worship, the 
true anti-man-eating Doctrine on the Eucharist; the questions as 
to the Real Presence of the actual substance of Christ’s Divinity 
and as to the real presence of the actual substance of his humanity 
on the Holy Table, and as to their oral manducation; the rights 
of provinces, and of autocephalous metropolitans under the canons ; 
how we are to regard a valid succession’s right to obedience when 
it falls into heresy; the almost forgotten doctrine of the Eco- 
nomic Appropriation to God the Word of the sufferings of the 
Man put on by Him; and the church teaching on God the Word as 
the Mediator; and on the sin of service to creatures; and on the XII 
Chapters ot Cyril of Alexandria—in brief on most or all of the chief 
controversies involved in the Reformation, and against Roman crea- 
ture-worship. No man can profess to be intelligent on Ecumenically 
authorized doctrine, discipline, or rite who does not know them. 


Besides the notes in English, Greek, or Latin, we purpose to give 
large translations from the chief participants in the Nestorian contro- 
versy ; from St. Cyril of Alexandria, and others, on the Orthodox 
side; and from Nestorius, Theodoret, and others, on that of the here- 
tics; and a series of Dissertations on the chief points involved. 


The works will contain notes, English, Greek and Latin. ‘The 
Greek and Latin will make the work more costly, but also much 
more valuable to the scholar. And in documents so valuable the 

- best is always the cheapest in the long run; indeed the only thing 


14 Chapter ἡ. 


that the scholar will be sure to get. It will be sold to subscribers at 
three dollars a volume, to others at four dollars. 


Another matter: Learned theologians are few, and so works of a 
learned theological character seldom pay. The Oxford Library of 
the Fathers, the most erudite patristic collection, the best and most 
ably annotated translations of their kind in English, and the 
most critical, notwithstanding a few Romish blemishes in Newman’s 
notes, are said, with some exceptions, not to have paid. The Ante- 
Nicene Christian Library, which in places at least is most wretchedly 
and most uncritically done, may have paid better; but, if it has, it 
has been because it is the only translation which has professed to 
cover the whole of the Ante-Nicene field, and because a large part 
of those who bought it were themselves not aware of its glaring de- 
fects. ΤῸ take two instances only which have fallen under my own 
cognizance incidentally. 


1. The great and inexcusable outrage is committed of fathering 
on the anti-creature-serving Methodius, Bishop of Tyre, who died a 
martyr for Christ about A. D. 312, one of the productions of the 
creature-serving Methodius of Constantinople, of the ninth century, 
that is, his creature-invoking ‘‘ Oration concerning Simeon and Anna 
on the day they met in the temple,’’ and that without a hint of its spuri- 
ousness (1), though years before, Murdock’s Mosheim’s Fcclestastecal 
History, volume 1, page 172, note 14, had well warned scholars that 


‘‘Several Discourses of the younger J/ethodius, Patriarch of Con- 
stantinople in the 9th century, have been ascribed to the senior 
Methodius.”’ 

That it was written centuries after the martyr Methodius’ death 
is clear also from the fact that, as its very beginning shows, it was 
delivered on the Festival of the Meeting of Simeon and Anna in the 
temple, which was not instituted till the reign of Justin, Emperor of 
Constantinople, in the year of our Lord 526, or by his son Justinian, 
in the year 541 or 542. See in proof on that matter, the article 
‘‘ Mary the Virgin, Festivals of,’ page 1140, right hand column, vol- 
ume 2 of Smith and Cheetham’s Diéctionary of Christian Antiquities, 


—e 


Note 1. Page 184, vol.xiv., The Writings of Methodius, etc., Ante- Nicene 
Christian Library. For most nauseating and sickening creature-worship in the 
shape of creature-invocation see the end of the Oration on pages 208 and 209, 
where the Virgin and Simeon are prayed to. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 15 


text and note; and note 7, page 414, volume 1, of Murdock’s Mo- 
sheim’s Zcclestastical History. 


A 2nd instance of the uncritical nature of part of the translation 
in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library occurs in the translation of 
section 2 of Tertullian’s work ox Baptism, where it renders, strangely 
enough, the words, ‘‘homo in aqua demissus, et inter pauca verba 
tinctus, non multo vel nihilo mundior resurgit;’’ ‘‘ A man ts dipped 
in water and amid the utterance of some few words, ts sprinkled, and 
then rises again, not much or not at all the cleaner.” 


The Oxford translation has more accurately here, 


‘4 man going down into the water, and being with few words 
washed therein, * * * * ~yréseth again not much or not a whit the 


cleaner,’’ etc. 
The exact rendering is, 


‘4 man having been let down into the water, and having been 
dipped between a few words, riseth again not much or not at all the 
cleaner,’ etc. 


Tertullian in two places witnesses that the mode of baptism in 
his time was the thrice dipping, that is in section 3 of his work Ov 
the Soldier's Chaplet ; and in section 26 of his work Against Praxeas, 
where he derives it from Matthew 28; 10. 


That the immersions were of the entire body, I have shown from 
early writers on pages 285 and 139 of my Aistory of the Modes of 
Baptism. 'The mode of letting the candidate down into the water 
and then sprinkling or pouring water on him, does not appear, so far 
as I have seen, in any writing till the fifteenth century, though I 
think I have seen it represented in a painting ascribed to the four- 
teenth century in an art gallery in London. When it does appear in 
the Council of Florence, A. D. 1438-1439, the Greeks brand it as 
wrong, and as making two baptisms; (see my /izstory of Modes 
of Baptisms, page 139). But the translator of the above place in the 
Ante-Nicene Christian Library, evidently moved by his partisan 
and sectarian leanings and prejudices against the old primitive and 
historic mode, misrenders the text in order to make it favor his wish, 
and so translates ¢2zétus, ‘‘dipped,’’ as though it were ‘‘aspersus,”’ 
‘<sprinkled.’’ ‘The context and the historic facts, as well as the 


16 Chapter 7. 


Latin of this place, demand the translation which I have given. 
Grotius on Matthew 3, 6, remarks: 


‘That the ancient Latins used ‘tingere’ for ‘baptizare’ should 
excite no wonder, for in Latin ‘#xgo’ properly and generally signifies 
the same as ‘mersare.’’’ 


Tingo does indeed sometimes mean to dye, but such dyezng was 
by dipping. 

Equally definite is Rigaltius, for writing on section 8 of Ter- 
tullian’s work on Repentance, he says of him: 


‘“Wherever he speaks of baptism he uses the words /avacrum,’ 
‘tingere,’ ‘intingere,’ ‘ablut,’ ‘mergttart’ and ‘immersio,’ which do 
not at all mean sfvzzkling.’’ See for the Latin of the last two 
passages, and a similar testimony from Rabanus Maurus of the ninth 
century, pages 38 and 39 of my History of the Modes of Christian 
Baptism Compare page 83, where the Latin is found. For 
Rabanus in chapter 25, book I,, of his work de Cleric. Instit., says 
that βάπτισμα is translated into Latin by fctzo, and that the immer- 
sion of a man in water is called “nctzo. 


Matthew Poole on Matt 3, 6, in his Syzopsis Critic., renders 
Bdxzw that is ‘‘azp,’’ into Latin by “#xyo, that is dp as he under- 
stands it to mean: see my /Z7story of Modes, pages 40. 

Those two uncritical mistakes which I have specified above, 
show how much harm and ruin to Christian do¢trine and Christian 
rite such a translation may work among the more unlearned clergy 
who may read it and rely on it. That series should be carefully 
revised and its faults corrected before another copy of it is put in 


circulation; for the interests of truth and of souls require that to 
be done. 


ἸῸ resume: I have said that learned theological works do not 
pay. This has so far been true of my attempts to publish parts 
of this series on the learned themes of the Ecumenical Decisions. 
I do not use the word learned of anything that I have written, but of 
the themes themselves. ‘The subscription list thus far will not cover 
more than say four-twelfths or five-twelfths of the edition of this 
volume of Nicaea. And the persistent and wrong refusal of our 
Congress to agree to an International Copyright Law cuts me off 
from controlling the English market, which is better than our own, 
for the patronage of learned theology is greater there than here. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 17 


A Publication Fund made up of gifts from two bishops and 
fifteen presbyters, aggregates $360, of which $315 have been paid in. 
There is still a deficit of say about $400. And that means that 
the translator gets not a cent for his many years of labor, nor for his 
expenditure of much of his small means. 


Yet he proposes, if God spare his life and gives him the means, 
besides giving the Six Ecumenical Councils in their solid entirety in 
English, to pay a competent scholar to print a Critical edition of 
the Originals, and to pay other scholars to aid him in doing such 
parts of the translation of the voluminous Minutes of the last three 
Synods as he may not have time to do. 


Furthermore he has on Niczea and on the Second Ecumenical 
Synod Dissertations to show the thorough Scripturalness of their 
two Creeds; and a Dissertation on the words in the Nicene Creed 
which have given rise to so much comment, namely : 


‘“The Universal Church anathematizes those who say that * * 
the Son of God. * *. was not before He was born.’’ ‘These words bear 
on the doctrine of the Eternal Birth of the Logos. John Henry 
Newman in note II., page 416 of the Fifth edition of his Arians of the 
Fourth Century, shows that before the Nicene Council the opposite 
tenet, that is the Non-Eternal Birth view, is found in a number 
of writers, and that of all the schools in the Church the Alexandrian 
alone is distinctly clear of it. Newman, with his strong Roman 
prepossessions, holds that the view of the Non-Eternal Birth is rightly 
reprobated where it is reprobated. It should be added, however, 
that the doctrine of the Eternal Birth of the Logos is not affirmed in 
any of the Six Ecumenical Synods, though, of course, His eternal 
co-existence with the Father, and His consubstantiality with Him 
are. In my Dissertation on that theme I have endeavored to give 
more fully than exist elsewhere the statements of those Orthodox 
Fathers of the Ante-Nicene period who held that the Logos was 
always from all eternity in the Father, as (to use the language of St. 
Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who died a martyr for Christ about 
A. D. 177 or 183,) ‘‘the Word in and through the Father,’ (6 Λόγος 
᾿ενδιάθετος); but did not become ‘‘the Word borne forth,’ (6 Λόγος 
mpogoptzo,), till he was born out of the Father just before the worlds 
were made to be the Father’s instrument in making them. Besides 
I have euleavored to give fully the statements of the other writers of 


18 Chapter 7. 


the Ante-Nicene period who held to that doctrine, and of some Post- 
Nicene Fathers who maintained it. 


And on the other hand I have traced in brief the Eternal-Birth 
doctrine in Origen, and its development in the great Orthodox 
writers of the Alexandrian School, Athanasius and Cyril his successor. 
I have thought that these authorities in an English dress might be 
valuable to the Orthodox and impartial scholar. 


Besides, I have other Dissertations on themes connected with the 
First Council; one of which I give at the end of this volume. The 
rest, if means be afforded me, I hope to give soon. 


At least $4,000 a year will be requisite to accomplish all these 
ends. ‘The translators all have a right to some small salaries, enough 
to support them while doing the work, and enough to enable them 
to travel to those parts of Europe and Asia and Africa, where 
the manuscripts are, to consult and compare and copy them. 
Societies have done similar work for other writings, transla- 
tion societies and others. So we have a Str Councils Publishing 
Fund for all the purposes specified above. An average of one 
dollar a head for each clergyman in the Episcopal Church alone 
in the United States would give $4,000 a year—and learned men in 
every other communion are asked to cooperate by their influence and 
gifts. Our aim is to make the work strictly in accordance with the 
Six Ecumenical Councils, and not to swerve an inch one way or the 
other from it. We beg therefore every clergyman to send a dollar at 
least for years to come, beginning on receipt of this volume, to the 
Six Councils Publishing Fund, care James Chrystal, 255 Grove st., Jer- 
sey City, N.J. Itwill be difficult to find a better or more needed use 
for the money. It will be economically and prudently managed by 
scholars alone ; and every dollar will be promptly acknowledged, and 
all the business income and disbursements will be accurately audited 
by a committee of clergymen. If you can, give $5 or $10 or more 
annually, for probably not one-tenth of the clergy will respond to 
this appeal, for some have so little learning as to care for nothing 
much beyond the text-books which they studied in their theological 
seminaries, while others who have the learning to appreciate the im- 
portance and value of the Six Synods of the Universal Church have 
no means. For in our own land the scholar has but little place, —be- 
cause the unlearned multitude are the choosers, and the mere sensa- 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 19 


tional, heretical and empty-headed preacher is their man. Soit was 
often in St. Paul’s days (2 Tim. iv.,3: 2 Tim. i., 15). Unless there- 
fore the more scholarly men who have means help us, and help us 
annually, this series must stop, and the translations of the Acts must 
remain unpublished, to the great detriment of Orthodoxy and of men’s 
salvation, and to the spread of errors, heresies and endless schisms. 


We appeal also to the more learned laity, not only of the Anglican 
Communion, so famous for its encouragement of theological learning, 
but also to learned clerics and laics of all Trinitarian Communions. 


The amount asked yearly is small compared with the sums annu- 
ally and constantly spent for long periods to procure a denominational 
version of the Scriptures. And we will choose no translators for mere 
partisan or family or friendship reasons, as is sometimes done by 
members of Societies composed of divergent parties and often of un- 
learned or selfish men, some of whom are more anxious for a trans- 
lation which shall favor their peculiar hobbies, or give work to some 
member of their family circle, or of their secret society, than they are 
for God’s plain, clear truth. We shall choose in the fear of God the 
best, the soundest and the most accurate scholars we can get for the 
means given to us. , 


Remember then, we pray you, onthe first day of every year the Sz 
Councils Publishing Fund, which goes to procure the truest, the most 
accurate and the best translations of them into English, and to pub- 
lish a new and critical edition of the Originals. Our century has as 
yet seen no edition of the Greek published in it, nor has any edition 
been published anywhere as yet in full letter, plain, unligatured 
Greek type at all. This is a vast work and needs large means; 
larger than we have asked for. And it is a work which is pain- 
fully needed, and in which every learned man should take an interest, 


and for whose accomplishment he should use all his influence and 
energy. 


Subscriptions to the work itself, or to any volume of it, must be 
sent to James Chrystal, 255 Grove st., Jersey City, N. J. It is 
$3 a volume. It is wholly as yet a subscription work. 

These valuable Documents, are thus practically put within the 
reach of the poorest clergyman, for the price to non-subscribers, $4 a 
volume, is only alittle over a cent a day, and $3 is less than a cent a 
day. Astranslations of Fathers have found sale, it is hoped that the 


20 Chapter I. 


vastly more important Decisions of Universal Christendom may find 
sale also; and may be deemed essential to every cleric’s library, be it 
large or small. Remember, the Documents themselves are next 27 
importance to the Scriptures. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 21 


IN CARA A ν.: 
THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. 


INTRODUCTORY MATTER. 


CHAPTER ΤΙ: 


A FULLER ACCOUNT AS TO HOW FAR THE SIX ECUMENICAL SYNODS 
ARE RECEIVED IN DIFFERENT COMMUNIONS EAST AND 
WEST ; AND AS FO HOW FAR THEIR TWO CREEDS ARE 
IN USE AMONG THEM. INCIDENTAL, INFOR- 

MATION IS GIVEN AS TO THE USE 
OF LOCAL SYMBOLS ALSO. 


DIVISION I.: 


AS TO THE RECEPTION OF THE SIX ECUMENICAL COUNCILS IN THE 
ORIENTAL COMMUNIONS, AND AS TO THE USE OF 
THEIR TWO CREEDS THERE. 


At the start it should be premised, 


1. That no Eastern Communion, the Greek, which claims to 
be the Orthodox, the Monophysite or the Nestorian, receive either 
the words ‘‘and the Son’’ interpolated by some Westerns, or the 
doctrine which they contain. This will appear from the following 
testimonies from an American Episcopalian Clergyman who spent 
some time in the Orient, and had considerable intercourse with Ori- 
entals of different Creeds. 


22 Chapter 71. 


Rev. Horatio Southgate, in his Visit to the Syrian Church, page 
220, note, has the following statement : 


‘“All the Eastern Churches receive the Nicene Creed in what 
they affirm to be its original form, that is, without the words, and 
the Son. By the Eastern Churches I mean the Greek, the Armenian, 
the Syrian, the Nestorian, the Coptic, and the Abyssinian. In all 
of them the creed reads substantially thus: ‘I believe in the Holy 
Ghost * * * who proceedeth from the Father, who with the 
Father and the Son together,’ etc.’’ 


The same writer adds in the second note on the same page: 
‘“The Eastern Christians freely acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is 
both of the Father and the Son. They only deny that he proceeds 
from both. He is of the Father, they say, by procession, and of the 
Son by mzsston, giving to procession a definite and limited meaning, 
viz., that of zssuzng, and to mzsszon that of being sent as a messenger. 
Thus they commonly express their belief, in these words: ‘ Proceed- 
ing from the Father, and sezt¢ by the Son.’ ‘They allow, however, 
procession from the Son in a different sense from that of the proces- 
sion from the Father. The latter is Hypostatical or Personal, the 
former external or official.’’ The gist of the whole matter is that 
they do zo¢ believe in the e¢evnal procession of the Holy Ghost from 
the Son, which the Latin doctrine affirms. It will be noticed that 
Bishop Southgate speaks of this denial as that of ‘‘ the Eastern 
Christians.” 


2. This large Communion at least professes to receive the Six 
Ecumenical Councils and one other, that of Niczea, A. D. 787, which 
they deem the Seventh (3). It receives all the normal Epistles, 


(3) Wilson’s Lands of the Bible, Edinburgh, A. D. 1847, vol. 2, p. 462. A 
letter of a Patriarch there quoted mentions ‘‘the customs and canons of the 
Seven Holy and Ecumenical Councils.’’ This would imply that they receive no 
more than seven synods as ecumenical. See also p. 120 of Baird’s Modern Greece, 
where, speaking of the Greek Church, he states: ‘‘It acknowledges but seven 
general councils, whose authority is binding on Christians, the last in A. D. 
786 being that which condemned the do¢trinesof the Iconoclasts.’? Plato, Metro- 
politan of Moscow, in his Orthodox /nstruction, Part I., Sect. 29, enumerates 
only seven, the first being Niczea, A. D. 325, and the last Nicaea, A. Ὁ. 787. 
But Macarius, Rector of the Ecclesiastical Academy of St. Petersburg and Bishop 
of Vinnitza, in his Introduction a la Théologie Orthodoxe, Paris, A. D. 1857, p. 
671, speaks of ‘‘the eighth Ecumenical Council under Photius, in the year 867,” 


Account of the δὲν Ecumenical Councils. 23 


Definitions, Canons, and everything else decreed by them, and is now 
the only Eastern communion which does. For the Nestorian heretics 
reject the last four synods of the Christian world, and the Monophys- 
ites the last three. Many or most of the canons have fallen into desue- 
tude in the West, and the clergy of the Latin, and Anglican, and 
Lutheran and other Western communions know too little of the other 
ecumenically approved data. The Greek Church, however, does not 
really hold to some of the Doctrines of the Six Ecumenical Synods. 
I mean those which in effect condemn all worship of created persons 
and of mere things, nor has it since it became idolatrous. Indeed, 
since A. D. 787, it has rejected them by accepting the creature-wor- 
ship and image-worship and relative-worship of the so-called Seventh 
Synod. 


(‘‘Huitiéme concile cecuménique, sous Photius, A. D. 867.)’’? But, nevertheless, 
the same prelate, in his 7héologie Dogmatiqgue Orthodoxe, t. τ, Paris, A. Ὁ. 
1859, p. 17, 18, note 2, mentions only seven. “1 Eglise orthodoxe s’ appuie 
en effet d’ une manicre ferme et inebranlable sur les sept conciles cecuméniques; 
comme sur les sept colonnes sur lesquelles la sagesse divine a bati sa demeure 
ΠΡΟ ἸΚ Τ τ; 12 Eglise orthodoxe n’ ajamais altéré ni rejeté un seul des dogmes 
confirmés par les conciles cecuméniques, et n’ en a jamais admis un seul qui fit 
inconnu a’ |’ ancienne Eglise cecuménique: voila pour quoi elle s’ appelle ortho- 
doxe. * * Bien plus, se conformant toujours en tout point aux sept conciles 
cecuméniques, ete. 

The Longer Catechism of the Russian Church mentions only seven. The 
question and answer on this point are as follows: 

Q. “Ηον many Ecumenical Councils have there been? 

A. “Seven; 1, of Nice; 2, of Constantinople; 3, of Ephesus; 4, of Chalce- 
don ; 5, the Second of Constantinople; 6, the Third of Constantinople; 7, the 
Second of Nice.’? See page 17 of Llackmore’s Harmony of Anglican Doctrine 
with the Doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East; and id., 
p- 141, etseq. This Catechism is ‘‘examined and approved by the most Holy 
Governing Synod, and published for the use of schools, and of all Orthodox 
Christians by order of his Imperial Majesty. Moscow, at the Synodal Press, 
A. D. 1839. 

And Smith in his Account of the Greek Church, p. 217, informs us that the 
Greeks ‘(acknowledge but seven general councils.” That is, as he afterwards 
states, those from Niczea, A. D. 325, to Nicaea, A. D. 787 against the Iconclasts. 
But p. 219, 220 id., he remarks that they speak of the council held at Constanti- 
nople, in the year 879, in which all the acts against Photius, who was restored to 
the patriarchal dignity not long before, were rescinded and abrogated; ‘‘and the 
creed recited and fixed without that addition”’ [that is, the Filioque]. Aut because 
nothing relating to matter of doctrine was established anew in this council, 
which was held chiefly in favor of Photius, the Greeks content themselves with 
the acknowledgement of seven only.” 


24 Chapter 71. 


Furthermore, even in the Greek Church much of the discipline 
of the canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils is in desuetude 
and has long been. In Russia we find instead of the old half-yearly 
meetings of the provincial councils commanded by a canon of Niczea 
and by one of Chalcedon, a Holy Governing Synod composed of a few 
bishops only, at which, I think I have read, a presbyter and a laic are 
present with bishops, though I know not that they are coordinate. 
Similar is the case in Greece, to some extent. Such uncanonical 


bodies are apt to become sometimes too much like mere state-ruled 
machines. 


SECTION I. 
SYMBOLS USED IN THE GREEK CHURCH. 
This Church, though now, alas! idolatrous and creature-invok - 
ing, claims to be ‘he one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the 


Orthodox. (4). 
REFERENCES. 


1. The Euchologtum and other Church books of the Greeks. 
2. The Πηδάλιον of the Greeks, Athens edition of A. D. 1841. 


3. The Orthodox Instruction (Θρθόδοξος Διδασχαλία) of Plato, Metro- 
politan of Moscow, Greek translation, Munich edition, A. D. 1834. 
English translation under the title of the Doctrine of the Greek Church, 
London, 1857. 

4. Modern .Greece by Henry M. Baird, A. M., Harpers, New 
York, A. D. 1865. 

5. An Account of the Greek Church by Thos. Smith, B. Ὁ. and 
Fellow of S. Mary Magdalen College, Oxon. London, A. Ὁ. 1680. 


6. Some Account of the present Greck Church by John Covel, 
D. D., and Master of Christ College in Cambridge. Cambridge, 
Dat 722: 

7. A Harmony of Anglican Doctrine with the Doctrine of the 
Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, by Blackmore. But this 
author iniquitously attempts to salve over the guilt of the creature- 
worship and creature-invocation of the Easterns and their icon-wor- 


ship,—that is their idolatry, to put it in plain English. 


(4) This title is from the πηδάλιον which contains the canons of that Church. 
See the title page of the Athens edition of A. 1). 1841. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 25 


8. Introduction a la Théologie Orthodoxe de Macaire, Docteur en 
Théologie, évéque de Vinnitza, recteur de 1’ Académie Ecclésiastique 
de Saint Pétersbourg, traduite par un Russe. Paris, 1857. 


9. Théologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe, two vols., by the same pre- 
late, traduite par un Russe. Paris, A. D. 1859, 1860. 


10. The Creeds of Christendom, by Philip Schaff, D.D,, LL.D., 
Professor of Biblical Literature in the Union Theological Seminary, 
New York City, three volumes, 1890, Harper & Brothers, New York. 


SUBSECTION I: 
ECUMENICAL SYMBOLS. 


The Ecumenical Symbol of the 318 holy Fathers of Niczea. 

The Eastern Orthodox receive this, but I am not aware that it 
is now used at all in any public service. One of the shouts raised at 
the Fourth Ecumenical Council, A. D. 451, shows that it was then 
the Baptismal Creed of the East. For the bishops there state that 
they were baptized into it, and that they baptized into it. 


This June, 1890, I have consulted two of the best informed 
Greeks in the United States, one of New York City, and the other of 
Lroooklyn, N. Y., and both assure me that the Greek Church now 
uses only the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod in its public 
services, only that now they recite it in the singular, Πιστεύω, 7 believe, 
instead of the plural of the original, Πιστεύομεν. Neither of them ever 
heard in the public service, the Nicene, the Athanasian, or the so- 
called Apostles, or any Creed but that of the Second Synod. The 
Orthodox Instruction of Plato, Metropolitan of Moscow, recites the 
Creed of the Second Synod only, and uses the singular ‘‘/ deléeve ,;’’ 
«(7 acknowledge one baptism’? etc; ‘‘I look for the resurrection of the 
dead’? etc. 

ἘΠῚ 
THE SYMBOL OF I. CONSTANTINOPLE, THAT IS OF THE SECOND 
ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. 

This is used by the Greeks as the Ecumenical Church left it in 
A. D. 381. It is its glory that it has never permitted the addition of 
an iota to it, nor the subtraction of even a letter. It is the Baptis- 
mal and Eucharistic symbol of the Greeks (5). 

(5). See these offices in the Great Euchologium. 


26 Chapter 771. 


SUBSECTION 11. 
LOCAL SYMBOLS OF THE EAST. 
I: 


In the Greek Church the Creed of Gregory the Wonder-worker is 
held in great consideration, (6) and is usually printed in Russia with 
the ‘‘ Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the 
East,’’ (7), but I think is not publicly recited. 


SUBSECTION III. 
LOCAI, SYMBOLS OF THE WEST. 
i. 
THE WESTERN CBEED, TERMED IN THE OCCIDENT, THE APOSTLES. 


The Easterns have never used this, nor do they use it now. 

Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitza, expressly states this. Ina note 
to his work on Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, speaking of the Creed 
before (Niceea.A. D.'325, he'says: 


‘“We here say nothing of the symdol called apostolic, which was 
in use during the first three centuries, especially in the Roman 
Church, and which to this day enjoys a high esteem in the West: 
We say nothing, because the Orthodox Church of the East has not 
used this symbol, either in the first three centuries, or at any later 
epoch ; so that, consequently, she never considered it, in a strict sense, 
as an apostolic symbol, and she never preferred it to the other ancient 
symbols of the faith, all of which, according to tradition, could equally 
derive their origin from the apostles, if not as to their letter, at least 
so far as their sense and the contents are concerned. (Hist. Bibl. of 
Philaret, Metrop. of Moscow, p. 600, 4th ed.) ‘ We neither have nor 
have seen a symbol of the Apostles,’ such, at the council of Florence, 


(6) Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitza and rector of the Ecclesiastical Academy of 
St. Petersburg, in his 7héologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe, Paris A. D. 1859, t. I, 
p. 11, speaking of the symbols of the first three centuries, remarks: “L’ un de 
ces symboles est resté jusqu ἃ présent en grande considération dans 1 Eglise 
orthodoxe: ς᾽ est celui de Saint Grégoire le Thaumaturge, qui expose, contre 
Sabellius et Paul de Samosate, la doctrine des attributs et de l’ égalité parfaite 
de chacune des personnes de la trés-sainte Trinité.’’ 

(7) Macaire, /utrod.a la Théologie Orthodoxe, p. 604, note 771 on that page. 
It is quoted below in our remarks on the Athanasian Creed. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 21 


was the answer of the representatives of the Orthodox Church to the 
Latins, who, in showing their symbol, said that it came from the 
apostles themselves (Concil. Florent., sect. vi., cap. 6. (8). It was 
that great character, Mark of Ephesus, the staunchest champion of 
Orthodoxy at Florence, who remarked ‘‘ We neither have nor have 
seen a Symbol of the Apostles.’? It is found in Syropulus’ Historia, 
Concilit Florentint, Creyghton’s translation, Hagze-Comitis, A. Ὁ. 

L660, ‘sect.vi., cap. 6, p+ 150. 


Plato, Metropolitan of Moscow, writes to the same effect : 


‘“There is no use of the so-called Apostolic Symbol in the 
Greco-Russian Church except what is private’’ (9). 


The Greek, Syropulus, as Gibbon tells us the name should be 
spelled (10), in his Zhe History of the not true Union between the Greeks 
and the Latins (11) in the Ferrara-Florence Council of A. D. 1428-- 
1439, section vi., chapter vi., tells how the Greek Emperor told the 
Patriarch of Constantinople when they were at Ferrara, ‘‘ the Pope 
will send some Cardinals to us to speak some words of the Pope.’’ 


(8.) Macarius, 7héologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe, t. τ, p. 12: 

‘Nous ne disons rien ici du Symbole dit Apostolique, qui fut en usage pen- 
dant les trois premiers siécles, surtout dans 1’ Eglise romaine, et qui jusqu’ ἃ ce 
jour jouit d’ une haute estime en Occident; nous n’ en disons rien, parce que 1’ 
Eglise Orthodoxe d’ Orient n’ employa ce symbole, ni dans les trois premiers 
siécles, oft elle en avait d’ autres, nid aecune époque postérieure; que par con- 
séquent, elle ne le considéra jamais dans un sens rigoureux comme un symbole 
apostolique, et ne le préféra jamais aux autres anciens symboles de la foi, qui 
tous, suivant la tradition, pouvaient également tirer leur origine des apdétres, 
sinon)pour la lettre, au moins pour 1’ esprit et le contenu. (Hist. Bibl. de Phi- 
laréte, Metrop. de Mosc., p. 600, 4e ed.) Ἥμεις, οὔτε ἔχομεν οὗτε εἴδομεν, cbuBodor 
τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων : telle fut, au concile de Florence, la réponse des représentants 
de’ Τὶ Eglise orthodoxe aux Latins, qui, en montrant leur symbole, disaient qu’ 
il provenait des apdtres eux-mémes, (Concil. Florent., sect. vi., cap. 6.) 


(9) Archbishop Plato, in the supplement to M. Duten’s Oeuvres Méleés, 
part ii., p. 164-5, quoted ina note on p. 203, vol. i; of ‘‘Adam’s Religious Worid 
Displayed,’ Wondon, A. D. 1823. Usus Symboli, ita dicti Apostolici, in Ecci. 
Greeco-Russica nonnisi privatus est. 

(10.) Gibbon, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter lxvi, 
in a note (on page 229, vol 7, of Bohn’s seven volume edition of 1855, London) 
shows that. 


(11) Another note on the same page, states that the above title is Creygh- 
ton’s addition, for the original from which he translated is without any. 


28 Chapter IT. 


The Emperor said, ‘‘I therefore will be there, and let ours also be 
gathered. ‘The Emperor therefore came and sat with the Patriarch. 
And there were assembled the high priests [that is the Bishops] and 
the cross-bearers, and the hegumens, and the Emperor decreed, 
Those from the Pope shall speak words, but I know not of what sort; 
only that it will be necessary for some of ours to reply in defence. 
Let therefore some be selected to make the defence for us, that they 
may hear attentively, and prepare to respond in our defence. And 
they chose the Bishop of Ephesus [Mark] and the Bishop of Niczea 
[Bessarion]. And the Patriarch said, The Bishop of Nicea also 
must therefore sit with the Bishop of Ephesus, since they are going 
to make our defence in common; and he at once sat down with the 
Bishop of Ephesus’’ (12). 

After this preparation comes the passage at arms between the 
eepresentatives of both communions, where we shall find the matter 
of the Apostles’ Creed comes up, and where Julian, in accordance 
with the uncritical spirit of the Middle ages, advances the legend of 
the Apostles having actually made it and the myth that the Onrentals 
who formed the bulk of the First Ecumenical Council knew any- 
thing of the local peculiarly Western Creed which we call the Apos- 
tles’, which indeed, as Dr. Heurtley shows on pages 70 and 71 of his 
Harmonia Symbolica, is not found in its present enlarged form till 
the eighth century: or as though they were dissatisfied with a creed 
of which they knew nothing, and which had always been purely 
Western. 

The fable however that the Council of Niczea had altered it into 
the Nicene, is a notion that we shall find repeated in an old Protes- 
tant statement further on; I mean the Bohemian Confession, of which 
[I will speak there. We shall find Mark of Ephesus denying both 
statements, and that not only in his own name but for all, and ex- 
pressing the view that Julian might refer to the gathering at Jerusa- 
em mentioned in Actsxv. He brings out also the Greek maintenance 
of the proscription of things strangled there against the Latin loose- 
ness on that subject. We shall find Julian making no other defence 
against Mark’s denial than the assertion that ‘‘ that Symbol of the 
Apostles is to be found among them,’ that is, among the Latins, 


(12) Creyghton’s Vera Historia Unionis non Vere inter Grecos et Latinos 
sive Concilii Florentint, séct. vi., cap. Vi., page 150. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Connceils. 29 


meaning seemingly the Creed commonly called the Apostles’. But 
the mere fact of the existence in the West from the fourth century of 
a shorter form of the Creed of that name does not prove that even 
that shorter form was made by the Apostles. Syropulus, as is clear 
from the following, held in effect that Mark had in most things 
proved himself the victor. I quote the whole passage : 


“And there came from the Pope two Cardinals, Julian and Fir- 
man, and six Bishops, of whom the Bishop of Rhodes was one. And 
Julian spoke words as from the Pope concerning the settling and 
opening of the Council, and how the Apostles made a Synod and 
delivered also the holy Creed; but that the Ecumenical Councils held 
afterwards were not satisfied with the Creed of the Apostles, but that 
the First also made a Creed, and the Second changed it and added to 
it, and he spake many other words concerning the holy Synods in 
their order with ambition and oratorical skill; and said that the 
present Synod also, like them, must go forward and not delay, and 
that it must not change. 


“But to all the words of Julian, the Bishop of Ephesus opposed 
noble and sufficient rebuttals. And conceruing the Synod of the 
Apostles and their Creed he said, We neither have nor have seen a 
Creed of the Apostles. 


“But as to a Synod of the Apostles of which thou speakest, we 
know of that meeting in which they came together and made a decree, 
that we should abstain from things offered in sacrifice to idols and from 
what is strangled and from certain other things. For they came to- 
gether and put forth a decree, and madea rule, and enacted a law, 
both they themselves and the Holy Ghost before them, as they 
themselves say, that we should abstain from what is strangled, and 
those other things ; but that meeting is not called a Synod of the 
Apostles. 

“And after the Bishop of Ephesus had replied to all that had been 
said by Julian, Julian began [in his turn]: and first he praised the 
Bishop of Ephesus, for having made the defence of his own side very 
understandingly and wisely. ‘Then he divided his [Mark’s] defence 
into eighteen heads. Julian said, First thou hast said this, and 
secondly that, and thirdly that other thing, and so on to the end of 
the eighteen. Then he added his reply to each, saying, In the first 
head thou hast said as follows: I answer as follows. ‘Then to the 


30 Chapter IT, 


second, which was so-and-so, I answer as follows: and to the rest of 
the heads he replied in like manner. His replies to some things 
were, indeed, noble and forceful, but his answers to most of the heads 
were rotten at bottom. But he passed over in silence the matter 
concerning the Synod of the Apostles, and concerning what 15 
strangled. ‘That Creed of the Apostles, he said, is to be found among 
them. So all admired him for his enumeration and for his division 
of the heads, and again, for the order of his recapitulating. And yet 
as regards the quality of the arguments employed, those of the 
Bishop of Ephesus were more forceful in their truthfulness thar 
those of Julian. And on that the meeting was broken up, and we 
went away to our own lodgings.”’ 
Here then we see, 


τ. That in A. D. 1438, the noted Archbishop of Ephesus, Mark, 
speaking for all the Oriental Church, witnesses that they had no 
Creed of the Apostles, nor had they seen it: 


2. He denies in effect, in the name of the Oriental Church, the 
fable that the Apostles held a Synod and made the so-called Apostles’ 
Creed by each Apostle contributing one article, so making XII. 
Heurtley on pages 46 and 47 of his Harmonia Symbolicamentions some 
‘« Sermons on the Creed, published among St. Augustine’ s works,’ which 
“are all justly regarded as spurious by the Benedictine Editors.’ He 
refers to two of them, sermons cexl. and cexli., in which ‘‘the Creed is 
recorded at length, exactly as it stands at this day.’’ ‘That would 
prove, of course, that it must be at least as late as the eighth century, 
for the so-called Apostles’ is not found in that full form till then. 
He goes on, 

“ΤΠ these the several Articles are ascribed to the Apostles, by 
whom the writers supposed them severally to have been contributed. 
[I translate the Latin in Heurtley], ‘Peter said, 7 believe in God the 
Father, Almighty, etc. Andrew said, And in Jesus Christ, etc. 
James said, Who was conceived, etc.’ Unfortunately the same article 
is not by both [those spurious sermons] attributed to the same Apos- 
tle. Ascriptions of this sort are not unfrequently met with in 
manuscripts of the middle ages.”’ 


In the same Harmonia Symbolica of Dr. Heurtley, page 67, we 


find part of a Gallican Sacramentary of the VIIth Century in which the 
legend that each of the XII. Apostles made a different article of the 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 91 


Apostles’ Creed is found. But, differently from what we find in the 
one just quoted, John makes the Second Article, / believe in Jesus 
Christ, etc. Besides, it divides Article V. into two, and makes but 
one article of Articles XI. and XII. So Heurtley tells us on page 
68, id. 


Heurtley, though a strong believer in the great antiquity of the 
shorter form of the Apostles’ Creed, so-called, nevertheless rejects 
the idea that the Apostles made any formula, for after some remarks 
on that point he concludes on pages 153 and 154, as follows: 


‘There does not seem reason to believe that any one formula 
was definitely prescribed by the Apostles. Had this been the case, 
the various churches would scarcely have thought themselves at 
liberty to make alterations and additions to the extent to which they 
did. Much less is there warrant for the tradition mentioned by 
Rufinus, that each Apostle contributed a several article.’’ 


One thing we may mention, though it is no part of this discussion : 
Cardinal Julian, according to the article on him in McClintock & 
Strong’s Cyclopedia, came to asad end at the last. For he by the 
Pope’s authority undertook to deliver King Wladislas, of Hungary, 
from his obligation to keep the truce of ten years with the Turks, and 
to war on them contrary to his promise, and in the defeat which fell 
on the Christians, he with the King, fell in battle. That article 
speaks of Julian as unscrupulous. He was showy but not solid. 
Mark of Ephesus though an idolater, like Julian, was neverthless 
nearer the truth in dogma and in the primitive customs than he was, 
on the Double Procession, the use of Azymes, and Baptism, and as to 
the Roman Supremacy. 


The author of a note in the Πηδάλιον (Athens, A. Ὁ. 1841), page 
123, states however that some of the later Greek theologians cite 
testimonies on certain matters from the so-called: Apostles’ Creed, 
but he quotes as conclusive against its being a Creed of the Apostles 
the above quoted statement of Mark of Ephesus at the Council of 
Ferrara-Florence. The annotator thinks that an expression in 
Canon 1. of Trullo of A. D. 691, as to the Apostles’ faith may mean 
the faith transmitted by the living voice and unwritten, or else the 
faith which is in the Gospels and Epistles, or else that confession of 
Faith which is in the Apostolic Constitutions, book vii., chapter 41 


32 Chapter 71. 


(al. 42). But those Constitutions are spurious and centuries later 
than the Apostles, and the expression in Canon 1. of Trullo does not 
mean any Creed. 


THE SO-CALLED ATHANASIAN CREED. 


It is now admitted by the learned that this Creed is not a pro- 
duction of Athanasius but of some Western writer (13). It has been 
asserted that the Greeks are strangers to it. 


Thos. Smith, B. D. and Fellow of S. Mary Magdalen College, 
Oxon., in his decount of the Greek Church, London, A. D. 1680, p. 
196, states of the Greeks: 


‘They retain exactly the Catholick Doctrine concerning the most 
holy and undivided Trinity, and the Incarnation of the eternal Son 
of God, according to the Constantinopolitan Creed, which they only re- 
tain in their Liturgies and Catechisms.. * * * As to that of 5. 
Athanasius they are wholly strangers to it. 


But ‘‘a sacred synopsis,’’ (ξύνοφψις ‘lepa, περιέχουσα ἀκολουθίας xat 
εὐχὰς ἐχάστῳ χριστιανῷ προσηχούσας χαὶ ἄλλα ὠφέλιμα,) published at Venice, 
A. D. 1862, is found p. 338 ‘‘4 Symbol of St. Athanasius, Archbishop 
of Alexandria.’ But the work is merely a popular and private 
prayer book, not one of the regular Church books, and therefore can 
not claim Church authority. It corresponds to the many Prayer 
Books of the Latins, such for instance as are used by the laity in the 
Churches. Dr. Schaffin his Creeds of Christendom, volume 1., page 
42, states of the Athanasian Creed: 


“In the Greek Church it never obtained general currency or 
formal ecclesiastical sanction, and is used only for private devotion, 
with the omission of the clause on the double procession of the 
Spirit.” 

In a note on the same page Schaff writes : 


‘Some Greeks say that the words ef F7/io (ver. 23) are a Latin 
interpolation, others that Athanasius was drunk when he wrote them. 
Most Greek copies omit them, and read only ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρός; Mont- 
faucon, Athan. Ofera, 11., 728.”’ 


(13.) See Waterland’s work on it, and Kollner’s Symbolik, and Schaff. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 33 


No intelligent Greek would now accuse Athanasius of drunken- 
ness or of being the author of that Creed. Contogonis in his Ἱστορία, 
tome 2, page 144, pronounces it spurious. But the Latin original of 
verse 23, on page 68, volume ii., of Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom 
does not necessarily teach the doctrine of the double Procession, 
though that sense may be derived from it. For it does not assert 
that the Spirit proceedeth owt of the Son, ex Filo, but only that it is 
‘from the Son,’ a * * * Filio: est, ἐς, is understood from verse 
22, where it is expressed. “ΠΡ form in the Prayer Book of the 
Church of England has ‘‘zs’’ here in verse 23. The Holy Spirit 
therefore may be understood, according to the Latin, to be from the 
Son in the sense not of Procession but of temporal Mission merely. 


Much less does that Creed assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds 
eternally out of the Son; and hence it is not definite on that point. 


If any Greek translation’ has ᾿απὸ τοῦ ΥἹοῦ, “from the Son,’’ that 
might refer to WZsszon. It would require ’ex τοῦ Yiod to mean that 
the Spirit proceeds owt of (ex) the Son, andthe Latina * * Filia, 
that is, ‘‘ from the Son,’’ does not warrant ’ex τοῦ ΥἹοῦ. 


To sum up; it seems that perhaps since about A. D. 1680, when 
Dr. Smith’s work .was published, the so-called Athanasian has crept 
into at least one private prayer book. But we have not seen a syl- 
lable which serves to show that it has, as yet, succeeded in making 
its way into any of their authorized public offices. Nevertheless 
Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitza, and rector of the Ecclesiastical Academy 
of St. Petersburg, remarks of the Creed of Gregory the Wonder- 
worker and of *‘ that which ἐς known under the name of Athanasius of 
Alexandria,” that they are ‘‘admitted and revered by all the Church’? (14): 
and in another work this same prelate speaks of certain “Exxposttions’’ 


(14) Macaire, Théologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe, French translation, t. i., 
Ῥ. 19, Paris, A. D. 1859; speaking of the Theology of the Orthodox Easterns, 
writes: “1,6 fondement itmmuable de cette Théologie, ©’ est’ le synibole de Nicée 
et Constantinople, qui a remplacé ‘tous les symboles antérieurs, et qui est recu 
par V Eglise cecuménique comme la régle immuable de la foi pour tous les 
siécles, et avec ce symbole, a titre de complément, ¢outes les décisions en matiocre 
de fot, et des saints conciles, tant provinciaux qw cecuméniques, et des saints 
Pores de Τ᾿ Eglise cités par la concile zz 7rullo; de méme que le symbole de 
saint Grégoire le Thaumaturge, et celui qui est connu sous le nom d’ Athan- 
ase @ Alexandrie, deux symboles admis et vénérés par toute 1’ Eglise, 


34 Chapter L. 


of faith “‘ which she’”’ [the Orthodox Eastern Church] ‘‘ holds from the 
ancient and infallible Ecumenical Church, and which have an absolute 
merit,’ (15) among which he enumerates, ‘‘ The Eaposttions of the 
Faith, which without being examined and expressly confirmed by the 
councils, are nevertheless received by all the Ecumenical Church, as the 
Symbol of Saint Gregory the Wonder-worker of Neocesarea, the Symbol 
known under the name of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria’ (16). In 


(15). Macaire, Zntroduction a la Théologie Orthodoxe, French translation, 
Paris, A. D. 1857, p. 603. 

(16). Macaire, Introduction a la Théologie Orthodoxe, French translation, 
Paris, A. Ὁ. 1857, p. 603, 604, under the head of “" Expositions de la Foi, renfer- 
mant la doctrine symbolique de Il’ Eglise Orthodoxe,’’ thus writes: % 148, Leur 
Division. ‘Sil Eglise Orthodoxe ne mérite ce nom que pour étre demeurée 
en tout point fidéle ἃ Τ᾿ ancienne Eglise cecuménique; il s’ ensuit que les expo- 
sitions de la foi maintenues par elle, concises ou de quelque étendue doivent a 
juste titre se partager en deux classes: 


1. Les expositions qu’ elle tient del’ ancienne Eglise cecuménique infail- 
lible, et qui ont un mérite absolu ; 


2. Ses propres expositions, qui parurent dans la suite, et qui ne tirent leur 
inérite que de leur conformité avec les premicres, comme I’ Eglise orthodoxe 
elle-méme emprunte son importance de sa parfaite conformité avec I’ ancienne 
Τρ 1156 cecuménique. 

2149. Expositions de la premiére classe. 

Aux expositions de la premiére classe appartiennent : 


(1). D’ un οὔτέ les professions de foi rédigées dans les conciles cecuméniques, 
savoir; (a) les symboles de la foi: celui des trois ceut dix-huit saints Péres 
du premier concile cecuménique ; celui des cent cinquante saints Péres du 
second concile cecuménique ; le dogme des six cent trente saints Péres du quat- 
riéme concile cecuménique sur les deux natures renfermées dans I’ hypostase 
unique de Notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ, la dogme de cent soixante et dix saints 
Péres du sixiéme concile cecuménique sur la double volonté et la double action 
en Notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ; le dogme des trois cent soixante-sept saints 
Péres du septiéme concile cecuménique sur le culte des images; et (0), en 
général, les décisions en maticre de foi, renfermées dans les Constitutions des 
saints apotres, dans les décrets des saints conciles cecuméniques et provinciaux, 
et dans les régles des saints Péres, mentionnés par le concile 7 7) rullo. 


(2). Et @ un autre cdté, les expositions de la foi, gue sans avoir été exami- 
nées et confirmées expressément par les conciles, sont pourtant recues par toute ip 
Eglise cecuménique, comme le symbole de saint Grégoire le 7) haumaturge de 
Néocésarée, le symbole connu sous le nom de saint Athanase a Alexandrie. 
Ina note to this word ‘‘Alexandrie”’ he adds id., p. 604: Le premier s’ imprime 
habituellement en Russie avec la confession Orthodoxe de I’ Eglise catholique 
et apostolique d’ Orient, et le second avec le Psautier en usage pour les offices. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 85 


a note below he adds: ‘‘7he first ts usually printed in Russia with the 
Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, 
and the second with the Psalter in use for the offices (17). 

Nevertheless, Plato, Metropolitan of Moscow, states positively : 


‘*Our Church recognizes the Symbol of St. Athanasius (18), and 
it is found among the Ecclesiastical Books, and it is impressed upon 
us that we should follow its faith: but it is never publicly recited.”’ 

From this it seems that the so-called Athanasian is not recited 
in the regular authorized and public worship in Russia. Nor is there 
any reason to suppose that it is recited in the four Eastern patriarch- 
ates in the regular authorized and public services, though it is found in 
a private prayer book intended to be used not by a priest, but by a 
laic. 

But we must make a distinction between the reception of a Creed 
itself, and its wse in the oral public service by the priest. 

That part of the Orthodox Eastern Church which is in Russia 
receives the local symbols above mentioned except the so-called 
Apostles’, which it simply ignores, but it is not clear that it recites 
any of them in the public worship, though it does, however, receive 
them in a certain sense, as containing sound doctrine. It probably 
recites only the Constantinopolitan. 

In the four patriarchates of the East, it is clear that in the public 
services they make no use of the Western Creed termed the Apostles’, 
nor any use of the Creed of Gregory the Wonder-worker, nor any 
use of the Athanasian. They would however vecezve that of Gregory 
and probably that termed the Athanasian, without the double Pro- 
cession, for the Russians do; but the Greeks recite only the Constan- 
tinopolitan in service. 

But it must be remembered, however, that the Eastern Church 


receives no other Creeds as Fcumenical symbols, but that of Niczea, 
and that of I. Constantinople. 


(17). Ibid. 

(18). Archbishop Plato as quoted in a note on p. 203 of vol. i., of ‘‘ The Re- 
ligious World Displayed, by Rev. Robert Adam,’’ edition of London, A. 1). 
1823: Symbolum S. Athanasii Eccl. nostra agnoscit, et inter libros eccles. 
reperitur, et ut ejus fidem sequamur, inculcatur: tamen publice nunquam reci- 
tatur. The original passage is given as in M. Duten’s Oeuvres Méleés, 4to, part 
li., p. 164-5. 


36 Chapter IT, 


At the most, it receives whatever others it admits, as merely 
local. 

Before closing, may I have God’s help here to outline what will 
be a wise and proper course for the Greek Church to pursue in the 
present crisis to help on the work of a godly Christian Union! 
Surely, as Christ prayed for it at his Last Supper, we are bad men if 
we do not seek to achieve it in every right way. 


They should, then, maintain firmly, 


1. Their Ecumenically canonical stand against the Supremacy of 
the Bishop of Rome as distinguished from his Primacy: 


2. Their stand against the doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeds 
eternally out of the Son: 


3. Vheir stand against the Roman do¢trine of indulgencies and 
of works of supererogation: 


4. While they should maintain, as they always have, the ancient 
commemoration of all the faithful departed and prayer for them, 
they should still maintain their opposition to the non-primitive 
notions in the later Roman do¢trine of Purgatory, which in effect 
teaches that nearly all the faithful departed are in material fire 
at once after death and in grievous torments, contrary to the 
general truth taught in Revelations xiv., 13, that since Christ’s 
ascension those ‘‘who die in the Lord’? are ‘‘blessed’’ and that 
they ‘‘vest from their labors ,;’’ and they can not rest if they 
are all for hundreds of years in the torment of material fire. What- 
ever may be true of some, the general portraiture of the state of the 
faithful departed in the New Testament is that they are in heaven at 
once after death. See the Revelations passim. 


They are said to be with the Lord (2 Cor. v., 8.) and we know 
that the Lord is in heaven. 


On matters of Universal Rite, the Greeks should contend, as they 
always have, 5, for the trine immersion in baptism; and, 6, for the 
Chrisming and Eucharistizing of infants and all directly after it: 


And. 7. for the use of the New Testament and Primitive Church, 
and Ecumenically canonical ἄρτος, that is leavened bread, against 
the custom of using ἄζυμα, that is w2leavened wafers, which the 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. ΌΧΙ 


learned Bingham contends ‘‘was not known in the Church till the 
eleventh or twelfth centuries.’ (Bingham’s Antiquities of the Christian 
Church, book xv., chapter 2, sections 5 and 6.) 


8. They should follow their primitive custom for which Paphnu- 
tius, the monk-bishop, contended with success at Nicaea, as Socrates 
tells us in chapter xi., book 1, of his Acclestastical History, that each 
monogamist bishop, presbyter, and deacon, may keep the sole wife 
which he had before becoming a cleric, though he may not marry 
after becoming a presbyter, nor after becoming a deacon, unless when 
he was made deacon, he made the statement to his bishop which is 
mentioned in canon x. of Ancyra, approved by canon i. of the Fourth 
Ecumenical Synod. But, according to their old custom, the drift of 
New Testament teaching and their own ancient practice should be 
preserved, that is, as the single state is best fitted for the episcopate, 
monks should nearly always be chosen to it, and only in rare instances, 
if sound and very learned, like Bishop Bull, for instance, should a 
married man be raised to it. For marriage is a great hindrance to a 
bishop, and largely deprives him of his independence if persecuted or 
much tried. Yet as one of the Apostles, Peter, was married, I see 
no objection to one-twelfth of the episcopate being married, and not 
onemore. For unlessa limit be put the monks will be stripped of 
the episcopate altogether, and infidel, secular rulers will fill it with 
mere married men whom they know they can more readily force to 
become their tools in breaking down the faith and discipline and rites 
of the New Testament and of the Six Synods, as has often been done 
and is now done in the Anglican Church. ‘The superiority of the 
chaste single state which is taught in the New Testament must ever 
be maintained, and the great bulk of the bishops must always be 
single according to the New Testament teaching and example, and 
according to the teaching and example of the primitive Church. 


In brief, the Greek Church in all its branches, Greek, Russian, 
Roumanian, Servian, Bulgarian and all other should strictly study, 
remember and maintain firmly, all the doctrine, discipline, and canons 
of the Six Ecumenical Councils, and, where they have not spoken, 
all the historic and universal Tradition of the primitive Church on 
Christian doctrine, discipline, rite, and custom, and especially that 
of the Ante-Nicene period. 


38 Chapter 71. 


That will lead them to discard the following soul-damning here- 
sies and burning sins, for which God has punished them all so much, 
and for which he even in this nineteenth century still curses parts of 
Europe, Asia and Africa, with subjugation and slavery to the un- 
believing Turk, or Moor, or other Mohammedan; namely: 


1. The relative worship of created persons and of painted images, 
of images in low relief on the Gospels, of crosses painted and crosses 
graven, of the Scriptures and of parts of them, and of clerical vestments 
and of relics, and of other material things. For the Third Kcumeni- 
cal Synod in deposing Nestorius for different errors, and among them 
for the error of the Relative Worship of Christ's Humanity, has by 
necessary implication condemned αὐ Relative Worship of every kind. 
For surely every logical mind should at once see that if a bishop be 
deposed for worshiping relatively the highest and best of all mere 
created things, that is the Humanity of Jesus Christ, much more 
should he be deposed if he worships any lesser creature, be it the 
Virgin Mary, the Apostles in Heaven, the martyrs, or any other 
saint, or any archangel, or any angel, or any relics, or any painting, 
or anything sculptured or graven, or any cross, or any other symbol, 
or the Bible, or the book of the Gospels, or anything else. That de- 
cision of Ephesus, in effect, and by necessary implication, fordbzds all 
relative worship, which was the sort of worship offered by the idola- 
trous Israelites to the golden calf in the wilderness and to the calves 
at Dan and at Bethel; and commands us to worship God alone, the 
Father, His co-eternal Word, and His co-eternal Spirit, and to wor- 
ship them azvectly, not through any created Person, nor through any 
thing. 

2. Besides, all the canons approved by the first Four Ecumenical 
Synods should be rigorously obeyed, and such new-fangled bodies as 
Holy Governing Synods, etc., should be abolished. 


3. Such abuses in the matter of rite as the medizval or modern 
custom of giving both the bread and the wine in a spoon together, 
should be abolished, for it is not a cleanly nor a healthy thing to do, 
as a Greek gentleman once told me, to put the same spoon into many 
mouths, some of which may be diseased, and so the reception of the 
Eucharist has perhaps often been the means of spreading disease and 
sometimes death. No well-bred gentleman would expect all his 
guests at a cleanly secular supper to use the same spoon. No more 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 39 


should we at Christ’s Holy Supper. The ancient custom, once universal 
West and East, of giving the bread and the cup separately should at 
once be restored. Bingham proves its primitiveness and universality 
in his datiguities of the Christian Church, book xv., chapter 5, sec- 
tion 2. Compare book xv., chapter 3, section 35, where Bingham 
well rebukes those ignorant and really irreverent men who attempted 
to rebuke Christ and the whole primitive Church East and West by 
changing His institution in the Eucharist which the whole ancient 
Church followed. ‘The Greeks have the less excuse for continuing 
the present innovation on that matter, because it is sternly prohibited 
under a heavy penalty by canon ci. of the Trullan Council of A. D. 
691, which they profess to receive. 


4. Another abuse I would specify, which was not their custom 
as late as the disputes between Photius and some Westerns of France 
in the ninth century, that is the custom of monks and clerick wearing 
long hair like a woman, in plain contravention of the law of the Holy 
Ghost in 1 Corinthians, xi., 14, where St. Paul asks, ‘‘ Doth not even 
nature ttself teach you, that if a man have long hair it ἐς a SHAME unto 
him?’ ‘The old custom so far as appears, of the Greek monks, or 
at least of many of them, was to shear their hair, and one at least of 
the French answerers to the Orientals in the ninth century shows 
that it then prevailed among the Greek clergy. ‘The first appearance 
of the custom of monks wearing long hair which I have been able to 
discover was among the Massalian heretics whom St. Epiphanius re- 
bukes for it. Augustine of Hippo rebuked some monks for the same 
folly and sin when it first made its appearance in the West, and it got 
no permanent ingress there. It iscondemned in a canon of the Greek 
Trullan Synod of A. D. 691, which should be obeyed by the Greeks 
for it is in accordance with the New Testament. 


I have merely referred to a few abuses which need correction, 
and which the Bishops of the Greco-Russian Church are bound in 
duty to God and His Holy Church to correct, not to prostitute their 
great influence and power in apologizing for. For Christ will not 
forgive us if we do not what we can to make the church without 
spot or wrinkle or any such thing; that so it may bea glorious 
Church (Eph. v., 27). And palliating and pleading for abuses never 
reforms them. 


40 Chapter 7. 


And in brief, if we would bring on the re-union of Christendom, 
we must all, East and West, be as willing to reform our own abuses 
and our own lack of obedience to the Six Ecumenical Synods, and our 
departures from primitive doctrine, discipline, rite, and customs, as 
we are willing to rebuke others for their abuses, and for their lack of 
obedience to the Six Councils, and for their departure from primitive 
doctrine, discipline, rite, and custom. ‘There is no hope of reform- 
ing an evil man till you can get him to see his faults, and it is just 
as hopeless to try and reform any part of Christendom, East or West, 
till you can get it to see its faults. Self-examination, by learned 
men especially, and acknowledgment of faults, Kast and West, must 
be the first prerequisite to any godly and permanent union. Surely 
we should all, East and West, learn the lesson taught by Jeremiah to 
Israel, after they had been punished for their image-worship and 
idolatry, ‘‘ Letus search and try our ways, and turn again to the Lord.” 
(Lamentationsiii., 40.) Forin the past we have been sorely punished 
for such sins by the cruel Arab and the cruel Turk, as Israel were 
punished for them by the Assyrian and by the Babylonian. 


Another counsel would I give to all Easterns and Westerns. 


In things of lesser account, such for instance as the veiled chan- 
cel of the East and the unveiled chancel of the West, let each part of 
Christendom keep its own mere local custom which has been from 
the beginning, so far as appears; and let not the Oriental fault the 
Western for such trifling differences, nor the Western the Oriental. 


Only the Oriental bishop should banish the abominable innova- 
tion, the iconostasis, and restore the ancient veil: and if he finds a 
picture or image of any kind on it, let him do what an Orthodox 
Oriental bishop, St. Epiphanius, Metropolitan of Cyprus, did with a 
similar image, that is tear it up, or else at least remove it. For no 
such image of jealousy, which provokes the jealous God to jealousy, 
should be allowed for one moment in his house to lure foolish women 
into idolatry to the damnation of their poor souls. For with refer- 
ence to the likeness as well as to the graven image, God proclaims 
that He is the Jealous God and that He will punish (Hxod. xx., 4, 
5, and 6). 

After the triumph of image-worship in the East in the ninth 
century, the facts against it were suppressed, and lies were scattered 
broadcast. And so to-day there is a great lack of knowledge among 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 41 


the Orientals as to the testimony of their own forefathers against all 
forms of creature-service. ‘They are well given in Tyler’s Primitive 
Christian Worship, in his work on the Worship of the Virgin Mary, 
and in that on /mage Worship. Bishop Bull’s Vindication of the 
Church of England from the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of 
Rome, is good, thouzh not so full as Tyler’s three works and his 
work on What zs Romanisn ? 


Bingham is very valuable, though there is a blemish in one 
place, where he salves over the sin of relative worship of the altar, and 
of other parts of the church by kissing, embracing, saluting, and the 
giving any of those acts of paganism to the Bible or to any part of it: 
for they are all plainly and indisputably acts of relative-service, done 
on the principle by which the heathen defends his image-worship, 
that is, that the act of religious service done to material things goes 
through them to the prototype represented by the image, or to the 
deity, that is, the god or goddess or saint, to whom such material 
things, be they books, altars, temples, relics, images painted or im- 
ages graven, or symbols, are related. The faulty place in Bing- 
ham, to which I refer, is in section 9, chapter x., book viii., of his 
Antiquities, where some of his authorities are spurious, notably his 
reference to Athanasius. He gives the historic facts against the use 
of graven and of painted images under ‘‘ /mages’’ and ‘‘ Pictures’? in 
the /ndex to his Antiquities; and those against invoking creatures 
under ‘‘ Prayers’’ and ‘‘ Saznts.’’ 


If the Oriental Church Ecclesiarchs first reform the Oriental 
Church on the basis of the VI. Synods, and act with full learning 
and Orthodoxically and wisely, they can exert a most powerful in- 
fluence for God among all the divided flock of Christ, and help on 
the substitution of a perfectly sound successor on the basis of the Six 
Synods in the Roman see of Peter, for the present hopeless idolater, 
Leo XIII. and his heretical and creature-invoking following; and so 
make Rome a blessing, where it is now a bitter and great curse, be- 
cause of its patronage of spiritual whoredom, that is because of its 
worship of images painted, and images graven, and relics, and of the 
Virgin Mary, and of Saints, and of the vast power it sways to spread 
and foster those and other evils throughout the whole world. Every 
bishop in any communion who fosters such sins should be at once 
deposed and excommunicated, unless he reforms. 


42 Chapter 71 


Additional Reference on the Oriental Communions . 


At this point I ought to state that I should have added as Refer- 
ence τι, on page 25, above, John Mason Neale’s History of the Floly 
Eastern Church, General Introduction, volumes 1 and 2, Masters, 
London, A. D. 1850; Alexandria, volumes 1 and 2, Masters, London, 
1847; and Antioch, (A Posthumous Fragment), edited by Rev. George 
Williams, B. D., vicar of Ringwood, late Fellow of King’s College, 
Cambridge ; Rivingtons, London, etc., 1873. Neale died in 1866. 
From an advertisement inserted just before the title-page to volume 1 
of the General Introduction, it appears that he had intended to give a 
history, not only of the Greek Church proper, but also of the Nesto- 
rians, and of the Monophysites, and of the Maronites. 


I ought to add that, though able and learned in certain branches, 
he was, as his own works show, a creature-server, for in Sermons de- 
livered in a Religious House which I once saw, if I recollect aright, 
he said of the Virgin Mary, ‘‘ whom we adore,’’ and so I infer was an 
invoker of creatures, and a most inexcusable sort of a creature- 
server, who as an Anglican had the light and sinned against it, aye, 
who had so little sense of honor that he stayed in a communion 
which in its Articles condemned him as a paganizer and used the 
power which it confided to him to betray its faith and to corrupt 
its people. And he did much during his comparatively short life to 
bring on his Church and country woe and sorrow, if his abominable 
Jeroboam-and-Ahab-like creature-service find extensive lodgment in 
them. We grieve over the fall of Origen, the most learned Christian 
of his time; and over the Arian Eusebius of Caesarea, the Father of 
Church History, and yet the foe of St. Athanasius and of Orthodoxy; 
over the image-worship and creature-service of Photius, the 
ablest Christian scholar of the ninth century ; and so must we 
over the sad perversion into soul-damning creature-service of John 
Mason Neale. 


SECTION II. 
AMONG THE NESTORIANS. 
REFERENCES. 


Badger’s Nestorians and their Rituals, London, A. D. 1852. The 
following facts will appear from what follows : 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Conncils. 43 


I. ECUMENICAL SYMBOLS. 


They use the Symbol of the 318, without all the Constantino- 
politan additions. 


II. LOCAL CREEDS. 


The Nestorians use neither the so-called Apostles’, nor the Ath- 
anasian. 


III. They reject both the expresston, ‘‘and the Son,’’ and the 
doctrine of the Latins on that point, and side with the Greeks against 
both the zz¢erfolation and the doctrine which it contains. 


IV. They receive the Ecumenical Synod of Niczea (19) and speak 
highly of its Symbol, but whether they receive Constantinople is not 
clear to me. 


V. They reject the Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus and all the 
world-councils after it with all their Definitions, their Normal Epistles 
and their other documents. ‘They must rejeét Chalcedon, I. Con- 
stantinople and III. Constantinople, because these approved Ephesus, 
and their decisions are indissolubly linked with it. 


All these points are clear from the following references or state- 
ments: 

Rev. George Percy Badger, one of the Honorable East India 
Company’s chaplains in the Diocese. of Bombay, in his work on 
“The Nestorians and their Rituals,’ ondon, A. D. 18 52, informs 
us that the Nestorians have only the Creed of Nicza, seemingly in a 
peculiar form, but they do not use that of the Second Ecumenical 
Council. For in collating the belief of the Nestorians with that of 
the Anglicans as expressed in Article V. of the Thirty-Nine of the 
Church of England on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and after 
quoting the language of the Nicene Creed as used by the Nestorians 
and an extract from one of their services, he concludes: 


“From the above it will be seen that the Nestorians believe the 
Spirit to proceed from the Father, as do all the churches of the Kast, 
agreeably with the Creed drawn up by the Council of Constantinople, 
A. D. 381; but the doctrine of the Procession is hardly ever adverted 
to in their rituals in a purely do@trinal form. It is remarkable, how- 


(19). See Badger’s Nestorians and their Rituals, vol. ii., page 354. 


44 Chapter 71. 


ever, that in the so-called Nicene Creed as in use among them, they 
do not add the doxology, which was subjoined by the Constantino- 
politan Council, after the declaration of the Spirit’s Procession, though 
they are well acquainted with it, as will appear in the sequel. 


‘‘From these facts it would appear that the Nestorians were never 
troubled with any of the controversies about this article which took 
place, especially in the West, after the fifth century. ‘There can be 
no doubt, however, that, if dogmatically asserted, the confession 
that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son would by 
them be considered heterodox, as it was by their Patriarch when I 
translated to him the Creed as used in our Communion Office. But 
after quoting the Scriptural (20) authorities on which this truth rests, 
and upon showing him how positive the inference was that the Pro- 
cession was also from the Son, his objection to it as a doctrine 
seemed to be removed, though he did not appear to admit that the 
Western Church possessed the right of adding the /7/zogue to the 
Creed of an Ecumenical Council’’ (21). 


Further on in his work, Mr. Badger, in a comparison of the 
Anglican and Nestorian belief, regarding the doctrines contained in 
the 39 Articles quotes the Eighth thus: 


“ΕἼ [δ three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’ Creed, and that 
which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to 
be received and believed,’’ etc. He thereupon remarks : 


“ The only one of these three Creeds in use among the Nestorians ts ° 
the Nicene. ‘This differs from that of the Western Church in its 


(20). The learned but creature-worshipping Anglican presbyter, J. M. Neale, 
‘Warden of Sackville College, who edited Badger’s work ; in it, vol. ii., p. 425, 
note 25, remarks on the above and following statements: 

“δά Mr. Badger been more practically acquainted with the /7/zogue con- 
troversy, perhaps he might have written this paragraph differently : at all events, 
whatever single expressions may be quoted here and there from Nestorian 
Rituals, it is certain that they hold the Single Procession as strongly as any other 
astern Christians: 1. Because the Latin innovation has never been imputed to 
them by the Orthodox Eastern Church. 

2. ‘Because Theodoret, their great pattern, used it as a reductio ad absur- 
dum in his writings against S. Cyril.” 

In matters pertaining to the Orientals Mr. Neale was a diligent student, 
though a heretic, and, I have heard from Bishop Young, of Florida, given to drink. 

(21). Badger’s Nestorians and their Rituals, vol. 11., p. 78, 79. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 45 


omission of the /7z/zogue, and the part added by the Council of Con- 
stantinople, as has been observed under Art. V. 


“The Creed known as the Athanasian, is found in none of the 
Nestorian rituals, nor have I heard of its existence in any of their 
theological writings. The Patriatch, Mar Shimoon, on reading it, 
said that the only objection against it was the declaration of the 
Spirit’s procession from the Father and the Son, and the sentence 
‘one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. 
* x % The Apostles’ Creed is equally unknown to the Nestor- 
ians. It is occasionally to be met with in the books printed at Rome 
for the Chaldzeans, [that is for the Romanized Nestorians, ] but even 
these scarcely ever made use of it’’ (22). 


The term ‘‘doxology ’’ used of the Constantinopolitan additions 
in the first passage is incorrect. The language of the second passage 
is more exact. Still one other remark by Mr. Badger is worthy of 
note. He quotes the following passage as ‘‘ From the Nicene Creed 
as used in the three Liturgies of the Nestorians.’’ ‘And 7 believe in 
one “ον Ghost, the Spirit of truth, proceeding from the Father,—the 
life-giving spirit’’(23). But the Nicene Creed, without the Constan- 
tinopolitan additions, has only, ‘‘ And ἐμ the Holy Ghost,’’? which ex- 
pression is immediately followed by the Anathema. And even the 
Constantinopolitan Symbol reads differently. In the above expression 
it wholly lacks the words ‘‘ one,’’ ‘‘the spirit of truth,’’ and the term 
“‘ spirit’’ after “‘life-giving,’’ (translated ‘‘ Giver of life’’.in the En- 
glish Prayer Book,) but it places it before ‘‘proceeding’’ (‘‘ pro- 
ceedeth’’ in our version,) ‘‘from the Father.’ According to this 
representation the Nestorians must have altered or added to the 
Symbol of the 318 in a way peculiar to themselves, as the Armenians 
have in a way peculiar to themselves. Still, according to the state- 
ments above, they must omit some of the Constantinopolitan addi- 
tions. It is to be regretted that Badger has not given us the full form. 


The Nestorians reject, as has been said, all the Ecumenical 
Synods except the first two, and all their work, and all their con- 
demnation of Nestorian heresy, notwithstanding the attempts of some 
to make their difference from Orthodoxy a mere logomachy. 


(23.) 01d! vol) 2) p. 78. 


46 _ Chapter 17: 


That they reject Ephesus is clear beyond a doubt: 


1. From their siding with Nestorius and his doctrine there con- 
demned by it. 


2. One of their Liturgies bears his name. 
3. The sect derives its name from him. 


4. Mr. Badger has inserted in his work a document which puts 
into the mouth of the Nestorians the statement, ‘‘ 7e Nestorian 
Church has hitherto rejected the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.’’ 


5. As will be seen hereafter, they proclaim woes against all who 
maintain the doctrines of Ephesus which were maintained by Chal- 
cedon also; and against St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was the great 
promoter of Ephesus. 


Blunt, in his Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, etc., under estorians, 
states as follows, and quotes from Asseman’s De Catholicts seu Pat- 
vyiarchis Chaldaeorum et Nestorianorum Commentarius, 1775, pref. 
xliv., what is below translated by me: 


“ΤῈ need hardly be said that the Nestorians repudiate the Coun- 
cils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. ‘Timotheus, their Patriarch, in a 
national synod [A. D. 786, eonfirmed A. D. 804], pronounced [I 
translate the Latin] the Synod of Ephesus and that of Chalcedon 
anathematized, because they taught that two Persons had become 
united in one.”’ 


Mr. Badger, however, states: 


“ΤῈ is to me a matter of great surprise that the Nestorian rituals 
contain no formal condemnation of the Council of Ephesus. The 
excommunication of Nestorius is frequently refered to and censured, 
but no mention whatever is made of the Council which expelled 
him from the Church’’ (24). Nevertheless in a note on the same page 
as the last part of this sentence he gives us Nestorian-authority for 
rejecting this council by name (25): moreover he himself gives us the 
following extracts from one of their services: 


1. ‘‘Woe, and woe again, to all who say that Mary is the 
Mother of God’’ (26). ‘The Council of Ephesus did not say that Mary 


(24). Badger’s Nestorians and their Rituals, vol. 2, p. 126. 
(25). Ibid. (26). Id., vol. ii., p. 80. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 47 


was 7 μήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ ‘‘ the Mother of God,’’ but Θεοτόχος, “Bringer Forth 
of God.’ But nevertheless this denunciation is plainly leveled at 
that term. What it is in Syriac Mr. Badger does not state. 


2. ‘‘Woe, and woe again to all who do not confess in Christ two 
Natures, Zwo Persons and one Parsopa or Filiatign’’ (27). ‘This doc- 
trine of ‘‘ Zwo Persons’ is pointedly condemned by both Ephesus and 
Chalcedon. 

3. ‘“Woe, and woe again, to the wicked Cyril’’ (28). ‘This 
Cyril was the soul of the Orthodoxy of Ephesus, and is commemo- 
rated and lauded by Chalcedon. A chief business of Ephesus was the 
condemnation of Nestorius’ misinterpretation of the Ecumenical 
Symbol of Nicaea contained in a letter which he wrote to Cyril, and 
the approval for all time of Cyril’s letter to Nestorius as a correct in- 
terpretation of the same Symbol. It also approved St. Cyril’s letter 
which has the XII. famous Chapters. 


Moreover, at Chalcedon, a main part of the business done was to 
make a letter of Cyril to John of Antioch a Norm of Definition on the 
Keumenical Symbol. And Chalcedon approved all that was done at 
Ephesus. 

All these facts prove incontestibly that the Nestorians proclaim 
woes against all who hold to the doctrine of the Ecumenical Councils 
of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and to the blessed defender of God’s 
saving truth, St. Cyril of Alexandria, who presided at Ephesus. 
Consequently the Nestorians must reject the Normal Epistle of Cyril 
to Nestorius, approved and adopted as a Norm of Interpretation on 
the Ecumenical Symbol of Niceea at Ephesus, and the Normal 
Kpistle of Cyril to John of Antioch and the Normal Epistle of Leo 
I. to Flavian, both of which were approved and adopted as Norms of 
Interpretation on the same Symbol at Chalcedon. ‘hey also reject 
Cyril's letter which has the XII. Chapters. 


The question now recurs as to their reception of the second Ecu- 
menical Council, the First of Constantinople, and their use of the ad- 
dition to the Nicene Creed made in it. 


The facts on which to base an opinion are as follows: 


1. Rev. Mr. Badger nowhere asserts that they receive it. 


(27). Badger’s Nestorians and their Rituals, vol. 2, p. 126. 


(28). Badger’s Nestorians and their Rituals, vol. ii., p. 80. Compare id., 
vol. 11., p. 398, 399. 


48 Chapter LT, 


2. Heinforms us that they do not use the additions to the Nicene 
Creed put forth at Constantinople (29), which they w “τς if they re- 
ceived that Council as Ecumenical. 


3. We have seen no mention in their documents as given by Mr. 
Badger, of their receiving that Council. 
e 


‘They do seem, however, to admit the part of the Constantinopol- 
itan additions which relates to the Holy Ghost or something like it, 
though whether they ascribe it to the Council of Constantinople, is 
not clear. See Badger’s work, vol. ii., p. 78, 79, 80, where is found, 
the following extract from the Sinhadds ‘‘On the faith of the 318, 
with a short exposition by the Synod convened by Mar Yeshua- 
Mais 7 

‘‘ When they had finished their deliberations on the Divinity and 
Humanity of Christ they condemned the impiety of Macedonius, who 
blasphemed the Holy Spirit, and they declared thus: 


‘And in one Holy Ghost, the life-giving Lord, proceeding front 
the Father, who with the Son is worshiped, who spake by the 
prophets. 

‘‘Hereby the Fathers by their heavenly doctrine, magnified the 
Person of the Holy Spirit, and confessed that he is the Offspring of 
the Self Existant,’’ etc. 

But Abd Yeshua, Nestorian Metropolitan of Nisibis and Ar- 
menia, A. D. 1298, catalogues among ‘‘the Synods of the Westerns, 
that of Nice, of Byzantium, of Gangra, the false one of Ephesus,’’ 
[whether by this is meant the Ecumenical of A. D. 431, or the 
Robbers’ Synod of A. D. 449, is not clear, though the Nestorians re- 
ject both], ‘‘that of Chalcedon, of Antioch, andthe of the Greek 
Emperors’’ (30). 


On this passage Mr. Badger remarks: 


“The meaning of the original is somewhat obscure in this 
passage, but I conceive the writer to signify that the Nestorians 
possess the Acts of these Councils’’ (31). I have underscored “ἡ possess.’’ 
The Nestorians may jossess these Synods but they cannot recezve 
them all, for Mr. Badger himself quotes a document which with refer- 


(29). Badger’s Nestorians and their Rituals, vol. i1., p. 92. 
(30). Badger’s Vestorians and their Rituals, vol. ii., p. 378. 
(31). Id., vol. ii., p. 378, note. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 49 


ence to ‘‘the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon,’’ states that ‘‘ the 
Nestorian Church has hitherto rejected them’* (32). And that they re- 
ject Ephesus is beyond a doubt clear from what is said above. ‘They 
do however receive Nice. It seems clear therefore that Mar Abd 
Yeshua included in his Catalogue of Western Synods what his sect 
receive and what they reject. So that the mere fact that Byzantium 
is mentioned in it is not of itself sufficient proof either that they reject 
or receive the Second Ecumenical Council. After giving this stat- 
ment of Western Synods he adds: ‘‘ And we [the Nestorians] possess 
the astern Synods of Ishak, of Barsoma, of Mar Αννα, etc., among 
which however Niczea isnot found. So that it is clear that Mar Abd 
Yeshua in this work was simply giving a historical statement of what 
Synods were Western, and what were Eastern, in his sense of the 
terms Western and Eastern, for, among those of the Westerns he in- 
cluded Nicaea which he received, and Ephesus and Chalcedon which 
he rejected. And, moreover, it is noticeable that Mar Abd Yeshua, 
informs us plainly that his co-religionists ‘‘ fossess’’ the Eastern Sy- 
nods, while he is silent as to the question of their possessing or not 
possessing the Acts of any of the Western Synods, as Byzantium, 
for instance, although Mr. Badger was led merely to ‘‘conceive’’ 
that they do. So that from all the information given by Badger we 
are uncertain whether the Nestorians receive I. Constantinople or not. 
And yet it is not improbable that they receive it. Still the facts are 
not sufficiently definite to justify the positive assertion that they do, 
or do not. 


The Nestorians, who have some good traits, for they are said not 
to believe in Transubstantiation and not to be so deeply sunk in 
Image-Worship as the Greeks and the Monophysites, should ex- 
amine Ephesus and the three other Ecumenical Synods which they 
reject, and they will, if impartial and unprejudiced, see their own 
errors and will receive those four Councils, and give up all the errors 
condemned by them and will lay aside their cross-worship and their 
invocation of creatures and all their other heresies, and be one with 
Christ and his church again. ‘Their position now is a lamentable 
one, for they maintain the cause of justly condemned creature-serv- 
ers, that is of Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Diodore of 


‘ 


(32). Id., vol. ii., p. 354. 


50 Chapter 7. 


Tarsus, leaders in the errors of relative-worship of creatures, and of 
denial of the Incarnation. 

From what I have seen, I judge that they are given still to rel- 
ative-worship, and to the Nestorian Consubstantiation and the wor- 
ship of the elements in the Eucharist which Theodoret maintained, 
and which St. Cyril of Alexandria in effect opposed, and to the Nes- 
torian man-eating (ἀνθρωποφαγία) which St. Cyril condemned, as did 
Ephesus also, in effect. 


AMONG THE MONOPHYSITE HERETICS. 


REFERENCES. 
1. Ludolfi Historia Athiopica. , 


2. Wilson’s Lands of the Bible. 


SECTION 3. 
AMONG THE COPTS AND ABYSSINIANS. 
REFERENCES. 


In Ludolfi Historia Atthiopica, we find the statements that the 
Abyssinians who are Monophysites, 


1. Do not use the Apostles’ Creed, nor do they know of it (33). 


2. They use the Nicene or Constantinopolitan in a peculiar 
form, as follows: 


‘‘We believe in one God the Lord, the Best, the Greatest, the 
Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth, who sees [all things, ] 
_ and can not be seen. 


‘« And we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of the 


(33). Ludolfi Historia Athiopica, tom. i., lib. 111., cap. 5, sect. 19. Sym- 
bolo Fidei Catholicae Nicezeno communiter utuntur, απὸ * * Ovationem 
Fidei vocant. Illo quo nos utimur uti caeteri Orientales carent; haud levi in- 
dicio, Apostolos illius autores non esse, quamvis doctrine ratione apostolicum 
recte vocetur. In the Commentaries on the above in the same work, tom. 1]., 
p. 352, Lodolf writing, “126 Symbolo Fidei quo Habessent utuntur,” remarks: 
‘“‘Diximus in Historia nostra’? [He means as above], ‘‘A%thiopes ignorare 
Symbolum Apostolicum quo nos utimur, et pro eo adhibere Symbolum Nicz- 
num, vel potius Constantinopolitanum. Quamvis hoc ipsum symbolum com- 
muniter Nicazenum vocetur. The German form of Ludolf’s name as given on the 
title page is Leutholf. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 51 


Father, existing with Him before the world was created, Light which 
is out of Light, God out of very God, who was born, not made, who 
is equal to the Father so far as his divinity is concerned, through 
whom all things were made, but without whom was nothing made 
either in heaven or in earth; who for us men and for our salvation 
came down from heaven, and was made man [or ‘‘fook flesh ?’’ | of the 
Holy Ghost and out of Mary the Holy Virgin: he put on a man, and 
was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate; suffered, died and was 
buried, and rose from the dead on the third day, as it is written in the 
Holy Scripture: He ascended with glory into heaven and sitteth at 
the right hand of his Father: he will come again in glory to judge 
the living and the dead, and of his Kingdom there will be no end. 


“And we believe in the Holy Ghost, the lifegiving Lord, who 
proceedeth from the Father: We worship him; we glorify him with 
the Father and the Son: He spake through the prophets. 


“And we believe in one holy apostolic Church which is above 
all congregations. 


‘“ And we believe in one Baptism for the remission of sins, and we 
hope for the resurrection of the dead, and the life which is to come 
forever, Amen.’’(34). 


(34). Ludolfi W7storia Athiopica, τ. ii., p. 352, gives it as found in ‘‘¢he Gen- 
eval E:thiopic Liturgy’’ with the following parallel Latin translation: 

“Credimus in unum Deum Dominum, Optimum, Maximum, Patrem Omni- 
potentem, Fa¢torem cceli et terrae; qui videt [omnia] et non videri potest. (a). 


“ Et credimus in unum Dominum Jesum Christum Filium Patris unicum ex- 
istentem cum eo antequam crearetur riundus: Jumen quod ex Lumine: 
Deum ex Deo vero. Qui genitus est, non factus: qui aqualis est Patri in divini- 
tate: Per quem omnia facta sunt, sine eo vero nihil quidquam factum est, neque 
in ccelo neque in terra. Qui propter nos homines et propter salutem nostram 
descendit de ccelis: et homo factus est a Spiritu Sancto et ex Maria Sancta Vir- 
gine. In virum evasit. Et crucifixus fuit in diebus Pilati Pontii; passus, mor- 
tuus, et sepultus fuit; et resurrexit a mortuis tertio die, sicut scriptum est in 
Scriptura Sacra. Ascendit cum gloria in ccelis: et sedit ad dextram Patris sui. 
Rursus veniet in gloria ad judicandum vivos et mortuos, et non erit finis regno 
ejus. 

“Et credimus in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum vivificantem, qui processit a 


(a). Ludolf, Historia “ΖΕ thiopica, tom. ii., p. 352, remarks on this in a note: 
“«Sic incongrue reddiderunt πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων.» 


52 Chapter 71. ὃ 


3. They receive the first three Ecumenical Synods, namely 
Niczea, I. Constantinople, and Ephesus. (35). 


4. They condemn Eutyches but reject the Ecumenical Council of 
Chalcedon, and, we judge, all the Ecumenical Synods after it. They 
condemn Pope Leo I., and laud Dioscorus, and deem Chalcedon to have 
decided heretically. (36). 


5. They do not admit the words ‘‘anxd the Son’’ interpolated 
into the Ecumenical Symbol of Constantinople and on the doctrine 
signified by those words side with the Greeks against the Latins. (37) 


6. Ludolf says nothing of their using the Athanasian Creed. 
So far as we have examined him we find no allusion to it in his work. 
I infer that they do not use it for the following reasons: 


Patre. (ὁ). Adaramus eum, glorificamus eum cum Patre et Filio; qui locutus 
est per Prophetas. 

Et credimus in unam sanctam Ecclesiam Apostolicam, quae super omnes 
congregationes est. (¢). 

Et Credimus in unum baptisma ad remissionem peccatorum et speramus 
ressurrectionem mortuorum et vitam quae veniet in aeternum. Amen.”’ 

(35). Ludolf's Historia Ae thiopica, t.i., lib. 111., cap. 4, mentions a work 
called ‘‘ The Synod,” or ‘“Synodal Book’’ which contains the Apostolic Constitut- 
ions and Canons. He adds: Post hunc librum, occupant tria Concilia G{icumen- 
ica, Niceenum, Constantinopolitanum, et Ephesium, cum nonnullis provinciali- 
bus, quae usque ad Schisma Chalcedonense in Ecclesia habita fuerunt: compare 
id!) lib, 111. cap. 5;,sect:, 18. 

(36). Id., t, i., tib. iii., cap..8, and id., t, ii, p. 354. They anathematize 
Chalcedon and all who hold to it: compare id., t, 11., p. 463, where language of 
the strongest and most abusive kind is used against it and Leo I. of Rome and 
his doctrines in regard to the Natures and operations in Christ. They differ from 
Eutyches, according to Ludolf, in the following respect: He asserted but one 
Nature in Christ as do they, but he asserted a confusion of the Natures which 
they deny. They follow the sentiment that there is no confusion or commixture 
of Natures. See id., t, ii., p. 462. 

(37). Ludolfi Historia 4 thiopica, tom. i., cap. 5, sect. 29, and tom. ii., p. 352- 


(6). Imdolf adds in brackets [et Filio], but in a note on the same page re- 
marks: Hoc Rome insertum et adscititium est, non enim reperitur in codicibus 
ZEthiopicis Mss., nec in Greecis. I have therefore thrown it into this note. 
Compare id., ii., lib. iii., cap. iv., sect. 36, where he remarks of a certain codex of the 
Ethiopic Liturgy at Rome: ‘‘Impressae extant in codice Romano Novi Testa- 
menti, ante Epistolas Paulinas, sed zz¢erpolatae ; ibi euim de Spiritu Sancto 
legitur *** ‘gui procedita Patre et Filio;’ quod posterius tamen A{thiopes cum 
Greecis non admittunt. 

(c). On this Ludolfi, Historia £thiopica, tom. 11., p. 353, note “‘q’’, re- 
marks: Sic Satis incommode reddunt Greeca καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 53 


1. It is now admitted among the learned that it is not the pro- 
duction of Athanasius, but of some Western. 


2. The Armenians, the coreligionists of the Abyssinians, do not 
use it in their Church services: Nor am I aware that up to this time 
the so-called Athanasian has acquired a position in the regular 
authorized church services ofany Eastern communion. I have never 
found it except in a mere popular prayer book (Orthodox Greek) 
for the private use of the masses. 


The Monophysite heresy has produced out of its own absurdity 
a perfect swarm of disputes. One of the latest is that on the nativi- 
ties of Christ. See the article ‘‘ ddyssinnian Church’ in Herzog’s 
Theol. and Eccl. Encyclopedia, and late works on that country. 
Probably in time these disorders and rows will produce a reaction 
among the more intelligent in favor of Chalcedon and its orthodoxy. 
God grant it, to the doing away of all error and the acknowledgement 
of all truth, that those who are astray may be gathered into the fold 
of the saved again, and that the Copts, the Abyssinians, the Arme- 
nians and the Syrians may remove the wall of separation which they 
shave raised between themselves and that Universal Church which 
would gladly help them drive the Mohammedan from their terri- 
tories, and give them their own lands in which so many of them are 
as strangers, and make them free. As things are now and have al- 
ways been, the fault is theirs and not the Church’s. For inasmuch 
as they worship the humanity of Christ as God they are creature- 
servers. 


The Ethiopic as well as the Greek Church is guilty of the idola- 
try of worshipping the elements of the Eucharist on two occasions, 
that is before their consecration and after it. Alas! That is Nes- 
torian error on that rite condemned, in effect, both by St. Cyril, of 
Alexandria, and by the Third Ecumenical Council. May they heed 
the Synod and reform! ‘The paganizer, Neale, page 495 of the 
General Introduction to his Eastern Church, shows that the Ethiopic 
and Greek communions are guilty of those sins. 


On page 509, id., Neale states that the Jacobite Sixtus Liturgy 
prays for the Venerators of St. Mary.’’ ‘Their Mariolatry and that of 
the Abyssinians is probably about as bad as that of the Greeks or of 
the Latins. 


54- Chapter 71. 


SECTION 4. 
AMONG THE ARMENIANS. 
REFERENCES. 


1. Histoire, Dogmes, Traditions et Liturgie de 0 Eglise Arménienne, 
Orientale * * * ouvrage traduit du Russe et de 1’ arménien par M. 
Edouard Dulaurier troisiénne édition corrigée et augmenté, Durand, 
Paris, A. ἢ. 1859. ‘This work I judge to be from an Armenian 
source. It is remarkable as denying the Monophysitism charged 
against the Armenians (38). 


2. Researches of Smith and Dwight in Armenia. Boston, A. D. 
1833. Both of these gentlemen were in the service of the American 
Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. 


3. Rev. Dr. John Wilson’s Lands of the Bible, Edinburgh, 1847, 
vol. ii, p. 479 and following. 


1. ‘The Monophysite Armenians receive the first three Ecu- 
menical Synods, but rejeét Chalcedon, and consequently all after 
it. ‘They must therefore admit the Symbol of the 318 and that of 
the 150, and the two Normal Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria to 
Nestorius which were approved by Ephesus: and they must reject 
the Norms put forth at Chalcedon, namely the Normal Epistle of 
Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch; that of Leo I. of Rome to 
Flavian of Constantinople, and the definition of that World- 
Synod, and they anathematize all the councils after the first three 
Ecumenical. They deem Pope Leo I. a heretic. 


The following bearing on this matter is found in Smith and 
Dwight’s Researches in Armenia, vol. ii, p. 275: ‘‘ One of the var. 
tabéds here’’ [the Monophysite Armenian Convent at Uch-Keleeseh] 
seemed much better informed than the rest, and as we were conversing 
upon various topics, he introduced of his own accord the Monophysit- 
ism of his Church, by declaring that zt receives only the first three of 
the General Councils. Nestorius, he said, held to a perfect separation 
of the divinity and humanity of Christ, and Eutyches taught that his 
humanity is absorbed in his divinity ; the Armenians, agreeing with 
neither, believe that the two Natures are united in one, and anathe- 
matize all who hold to a different creed. In this he spoke advisedly, 


(38). See id., Zutroduction and Primiere Partie. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 55 


for it is well known that Eutyches is acknowledged by neither of the 
three Monophysite sects, the Armenian, the Jacobite Syrian, and the 
Coptic, including the Abyssinian, to which his controversy gave 
birth, and that his alleged dogma of a confusion in the natures of 
Christ is the reason of his rejection. * * * Another intelligent ecclesiastic 
had told us, that not only does his nation hold to one Nature, but 
also Zo only one will in Christ, thus making the Armenians partake 
in the Monothelite as well as in the Monophysite heresy. (39) We 
inquired of the vartabéd if his sect does not believe that Christ was 
perfect God, and perfect man, and were assured that it does. Here 
too he had good authority, for the Armenian Church believes and ex- 
plains, as fully as any other, these two important points. When 
asked, also, if the divine Nature was so united to the human, 
as to suffer with it on the cross, he replied that it was impossible for 
the Divinity to suffer. But in this, though his Church would agree 
with his explanation, he seemed at least to contradict her formula- 
ries; for Peter the Fuller’s famous addition to the 77zsagzon is still 
retained in them, and had been mentioned to us by another ecclesi- 
astic, as one of the points of difference between the Armenians and 
the Papists.’? ‘The addition consists of the words italicised and put in 
brackets below : O Holy God, Holy Strong and Holy Immortal, [who 
wast crucified for us|, have mercy upon us.”’ 


Dr. Wilson (40) remarks: ‘‘ The following extract of replies 
given by an Armenian bishop at Basrah to Dr. Wolff, throws light 
on their ecclesiastical position and tenets : 

“Ὁ. What relations have the Armenians to the Coptic and Syrian 
Churches ? 

‘“ 4ns. The Armenians have the same faith and tenets as they 
have. 

‘‘Q, What persons are by them considered as heretics ? 

‘* 4ns. Macedonius, Nestorius, Arius and Pope Leo. 

‘“O. On what authority does the Armenian belief rest ? 

« dns. The Bible and the three first Councils—I. Nicaea ; 2. Con- 
stantinople; 3. Ephesus. Every other Council is anathematized by 
them.’’ 


(39). In his Lands of the Bible, vol. ii., page 484. 


(40) Inanoteonthesame pageitisadded: ‘‘ Compare Assem. Bid. Orient., 
vol. 3, p. 607.” 


56 Chapter LL. 


The author of the work entitled A7stotre, Dogmes, Traditions et 
Liturgie de l’ Eglise Arménienne, Premiere Partie, endeavors to 
make out a case in favor of the Orthodoxy of the Armenians, and in- 
sists that they agree, so far as doctrinal belief is concerned, with the 
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ecumenical Councils, and the (so-called) Seventh 
though he admits that they rejected Chalcedon and the Normal 
Epistle of Pope Leo I., which it approved, through ignorance of 
what that Council really taught and approved. 


But it is far from clear that they have at any time formally re- 
ceived the Ecumenical Synods after Ephesus, though it is true that 
they agree with some of their decisions, as, for instance, with the 
image (picture) worship sanctioned at the so-called Ecumenical Coun- 
cil cf Niceea, A. D. 787. Still, as each of the Councils after Chal- 
cedon approved it, and all the Councils before itself, and as the Ar- 
menians have never received Chalcedon, nor the Fifth Ecumenical 
Synod, or the Sixth, at least never in a// respects, they can not be 
said to have received even the substance of a// their decisions and 
canons, however true it may be that they receive them zz part. For 
the inan who becomes an eclectic and rejects any part of the decisions 
of any of the Six Synods on the Two Creeds, or on either of them, 
or who rejects any one of their canons, provided it has been received 
by the whole Church, East and West, in reality rejects what has 
Ecumenical authority, and can not be said to receive them Μεγ. 
There is no place for eclecticism here. ‘The universal Church must 
be heard in all her Orthodox utterances in the First Six Ecuminical 
Councils, for if we reject one part we may another, and so the whole. 
Or one man may reject one part, another another, a third another, 
and so on, until anarchy will be the result. The only cause sufh- 
cient to reject the decision of the Universal Church is creature-wor- 
ship, or some other deadly sin, such as the ancient Israelitish and 
Jewish Church was guilty of, and such as the so-called Seventh 
Ecumenical Council was guilty of. In that case, to receive the 
voice of an erring Council deciding contrary to and against Holy 
Scripture and earlier Catholic Tradition, is to disobey God. But the 
Armenians have rejected three Ecumenical Synods, namely, the 
Fourth, Fifth and the Sixth, without any such cause. Nor do they 
formally receive them as yet. It can hardly be said, therefore, 
whatever may be true of a part of them, that as a church, they are 


Account of the Six Ecumenicat Counciis. 57 


quite clear from the imputation of Monophysitism, or that their or- 
thodoxy is indisputable at present. 


Even the Armenian Council of Roum-Kalé, held to effect a 
union with the Greek Church, A. D. 1179, was not clear in favor of 
the seven Synods received by the Greek Church as Ecumenical. 
The account, as given in this Histoire, Dogmes, etc., de’ Eglise Ar- 
ménienne, shows this: (41). 

For, according to their own account, they refused the demand 
of the Greeks to accept formally and by name the Fourth Ecumen- 
ical Synod, and passed in silence over the Fifth, Sixth, and the idol- 
atrous so-called Seventh, and that notwithstanding all the efforts of 
the Greeks to bring them to a formal and clear acceptance of them. 


Besides, they clung firmly, 1. ΤῸ the use in the Trisagion of the 
Words addressed to Christ, ‘‘ Who wast crucified for us,’ which the 
Greeks thought savored of a belief that the Divinity of Christ suf- 
fered on the cross. 


2. To their custom of celebrating the Eucharist in wine un- 


‘mixed with water, and in unleavened wafers (doa), instead of the 


leavened bread (ἄρτος) of the New Testament: and 

3. To the celebration of Christ’s birth in the flesh on the 
sixth day of January. 

On point 2, they certainly differed from all Christian Antiquity, 


for, as Bingham shows, it used the mixed cup, and ἄρτος, that is, 
leavened bread. 


(41). Histotre, Dogmes, Traditions et Liturgie de δ Eglise Arménienne 
Orientale * * * ouvrage traduit du russe et de 1’ arménien par M. Edouard 
Dulaurier, Paris, Durand, 1859, page 51; where we find an account from the 
Armenian standpoint as to what the Armenian prelates did in their Council of 
Roum-Kalé. There is throughout an evident desire on the part of the Armenian 
writer to go as far as he can, consistently with his attachment to his own com- 
munion, to please the Russians of the Greek Church, for the work isin Russian 
as well as in Armenian. I quote from this page 51 of the French translation of 
it: “16 concile de Roum-Kalé dressa un acte de toutes ces conditions, ”’ 
[that is, to unite their Communion to the Greek] “et les confirma aprés les 
avoir trouvées orthodoxes. Cet acte fut signé par tous les évéques, et envoyé 
ἃ l’empereur Manuel et au patriarche de Constantinople, Théodose, successeur 
de Michel. 1,65 Cvéques, dans la relation du concile, commencent par un 
long exposé dogmatique, d’aprés le patriarche saint Ners¢s Schnorhali; ils 
mentionnent les évCques qui ont assisté, au nom del’ Eglise arménienne, aux 
trois premiers conciles cecuméniques, et aux sixiéme et septiéme ; reconnais- 


58 Chapter 771. 


As to point 1, if the Armenians held plainly and expressly to the 
Two Natures of Christ, the words ‘‘who wast crucified for us,’’ might 
be taken in a perfectly Orthodox sense, according to St. Cyril of 
Alexandria’s doctrine of Economic Appropriation, approved in the 
Third Ecumenical Council when they received Cyril’s two letters 
which contain it, and which are addressed to Nestorius; the more so, 


sent solennellement les trois premiers conciles, en acceptent les décrets, et pas- 
sent sous silence les cinquiéme, sixiéme et septi¢me. Dans cet écrit, ils pro- 
noncent anathéme contre Arius, Macédonius, Nestorius et Eutychés, tout en s’ab- 
stenant cependant de dire qu’ils reconnaissant le concile de Chalcédoine, qui 
avait condamné Eutychés.’’ At this point the shoe pinched badly. Chalce- 
don was the stumbling block. As to the matter of their condemning 
Eutyches, this proves nothing as to their Orthodoxy ; for other Monophys- 
ites do the same. 

The same work, page 26, has the following regarding their reception of I. 
Constantinople and Ephesus : 

‘Saint Nersés Ier fut le premier évéque d’ Edchmiadzin qui prit le titre de 
patriarche et de catholicos de toute 1’ Arménie. En 381 il assista au deuxicme 
concile cecuménique, premier de Constantinople. Il porta la parole dans les 
différentes sessions de cette assemblée, et accepta, au nom de son Eglise, tons 
les décrets qu’elle rendit. 

‘Quand le troisiéme concile cecuménique, celui d’ Ephése, se réunit, en 431, 
pour condamner les erreurs de Nestorius, 1’ empereur Théodose II. engagea le 
patriarche d’ Arménie, saint Sahag, ἃ venir y assister. I/Arménie ¢tant alors 
en guerre avec les Perses, le patriarche ne put déférer ἃ cette invitation. En 
butte aux persécutions du roi de Perse, Azguerd (Yezdedjerd I1.), il fut enfermé 
dans une prison ; mais le patriarche de Constantinople, Maximien, et les évéques 
Proclus de Cyzique, qui succéda un peu plus tard 4 Maximien, et Acace de 
Méliténe, envoyérent ἃ saint Sahag, par ses disciples Léon, Jean, Joseph et Go- 
rioun, qui se trouvaient ἃ Constantinople, les décisions du concile d’ Ephése, et 
communication de |’ anathéme lancé contre Nestorius. 

“ Saint Sahag, rendu a la liberté, convoqua, en 432, les éveéques arméniens, et 
leur fit part de la lettre du patriarche grec; il leur expliqua le but du concile 
d’ Ephése, adopta de concert avec eux, ses décisions, et pronon¢ga, au nom de 
1’ Eglise d’ Arménie, 1’ anathéme contre Nestorius, Théodore de Mopsueste et 
Diodore de Tarse. Saint Sahag envoya les actes de cette assemblée au patri- 
arche de Constantinople Proclus, afin de lui prouver que les Arméniens, n’ayant 
pu a cause des troubles auxquels était livré leur pays, étre présents au concile 
ἃ Ephése, acquiescaient aux doctrines de cette sainte assemblée. 1] lui adressa 
aussi une exposition des dogmes de 1’ Eglise arménienne, que Proclus trouva 
Orthodoxe et en tout conformed celle des Grecs. La copie de la lettre de Proclus 
au catholicos arménien saint Sahag a été publiée en grec et en latin par Mansi, t. 
ν. de sa Collection des Conciles, Celle de saint Sahag ἃ Proclus, qui fut lue 
au cinquiéme concile cecuménique, le deuxieme de Constantinople, est rapportée 
dans le méme ouvrage de Mansi, t. IX. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 59 


as the above work on the Armenian Church, page 43, shows that it 
uses similar language of God the Word which implies the doctrine 
of the Economic Appropriation. According to that doctrine, Cyril 
teaches that though God the Word is incapable of suffering, yet it is 
lawful to attribute Aconomically only, the sufferings of his humanity 
to God the Word, in order to teach men to look to the infinitely su- 
perior Nature of his Two, that they may not fall into the error of 
worshiping a mere Man, which of course would be WVan- Worship, 
that is, Creature- Worshif. No mancan understand Cyril unless he 
has read his two Epistles to Nestorius, which were approved at 
Ephesus, and his writings in defence of his XII. Chapters. 


I have thus written with reference to the statement on page 43 
of this work on the /istoire, Dogmes, Traditions et Liturgy de δ 
Eglise Arménienne Orientale, that the Armenians offer that hymn 
not to the whole Trinity, but to the Son alone. 


But at the same time it must be remembered that the Greeks 
hold that the Trisagion is offered to the Trinity, and not to the Son 
alone. Hence they, of course, must reject the Armenian form of it 
as abominable, because in that Greek sense it teaches ‘Theopaschit- 
ism, that is, that the whole Trinity was crucified and suffered. Thus 
a note on page 140 of the Greek Church work called “ερὰ Κατήχησις 
of Nicholas Bulgaris, published at Constantinople in 1861, gives the 
Trisagion in the form in use among them as follows: 


““Holy God,” (which it explains to mean the Father), ‘* Holy 
Mighty,’’ (which it explains to mean the Son), ““Holy Immortal,’’ 
(which it explains to mean the Holy Ghost), ‘‘have mercy on us.’’ 


That note alleges that that short hymn was given by miracle in 
the time of Proclus, who was Bishop of Constantinople, A. D. 434 to 
about 446, to confute those who asserted that the Divinity of God 
the Word suffered on the cross, and who with that view had added 
the words ‘‘who wast crucified for us,’ to the Trisagion. 

The Armenians use precisely that form. For the above quoted 
fTistotve, etc., states in effect on page 43, that it is said among them 
as follows, ‘‘Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, who was 
crucified for us, have mercy upon us.”’ 

Gibbon in chapter xlvii. of his Decline and Fall of the Roman 
Empire, tells how the populace of Constantinople resisted the addi- 


60 Chapter IT. 


tion of the words ‘‘who wast crucified for us,’’ and the notion that the 
Trinity was crucified or suffered. 


Some, according to Bingham, (Axtiguzties, book xiv. chapter 2, 
section 3,) to avoid any possible confession that the whole Trinity 
suffered, used another form, as follows: 


‘Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Christ our King, 
that wast crucified for us, have mercy upon us.’’ This might be 
taken as in accord with the Orthodox do¢trine of the Economic 
Appropriation. 

But it is admitted that the expression ‘‘who wast crucified for 
us’? was introduced by Monophysites, that is by the Emperor Anas- 
tasius I., or by the heresiarch, Peter the Fuller, (42), and with the 
intent to express their heretical doctrine, and as there is no need 
of it, as the Trisagion in the original form is complete without it, it 
is altogether advisable to use that original form without any of the 
Monophysite additions. Happily, as in the West we do not use the 
Greek form of the Trisagion, we have been free from the quarrels 
about it, which have worried the East. 


I would say, however, that even in the original, that is, the 
Greek form, its language is so thoroughly indefinite that it may 
be used as an address to the Trinity, as in the Greek note in the 
“ερὰ Κατήχησις above mentioned, and in John of Damascus as quoted 
by Bingham just above; or as a prayer to the Son alone. 


The ath point should present no difficulty, for the whole Ori- 
ental Church were ignorant that Christ was born on the 25th of De- 
cember till the latter part of the fourth century. Hence Epiphanius, 
Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and others apply the term Lpzphany 
to what we call Christmas. See in proof in Sophocles’ Greek Lexi- 
con, under ‘ex:gdvtos and θεοφάντα, and still more fully in his Glossary of 
Later and Byzantine Greek under ᾿επιφάνια, 

The cause of the difference on that topic between the Greeks 
and the Armenians is that the former in the fourth century adopted 
the Western custom of keeping the anniversary of Christ’s birth on 
the 25th day of December, whereas the Armenians for some reason 
or other, retain the older local custom of the Orient. On that point, 
for the sake of peace and uniformity on a non-dogmatic and trifling 


(42). Bingham’s Antig., xiv. 2, sect. 3. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 61 


matter, the Armenians had better follow what is now the almost uni- 
versal custom. ‘They can do so on the ground, as do many in the 
West, that whether the 25th of December be the exact day or not of 
Christ’s birth in flesh, such a blessed event is worthy of being cele- 
brated on some day, and as the Christian world celebrates it on that 
day it is well for the event’s-sake and for peace sake to keep it then. 
But they should anathematize the idolatrous conventicle of Nicza, 
A. D. 787, and on the other hand formally receive the Fourth Ecu- 
inenical Council and the Fifth and the Sixth. For now they doin fact 
reject certain parts of them, and of their doctrines, and so class them- 
selves with heretics of the Monophysite stripe, however much they 
may disclaim the imputation of heresy. 


In 1869 an Armenian prelate in Constantinople or one of its 
suburbs told me in effect that they received the doctrines of either six 
or seven Ecumenical Synods, I forget which; but he did not say 
that they received the Six Ecumenical Synods; so that it is clear 
that they do not in all things receive their doctrines: for they are in- 
separable from the Synods themselves. 


In 1878 I met on a French steamship in the Mediterranean, the 
Armenian Bishop of the See, if I remember rightly, of Moush. I 
asked him if they held to the Two Natures of Christ, or are Monophy- 
sites. He replied that they are not Monophysites, but hold to Two 
Natures. A gentleman present who acted as interpreter, Mr. Ras- 
sam, who was born in the East of Nestorian or Chaldean ancestry, 
contradicted the Bishop and insisted that the Armenians are Mono- 
physites. But the Bishop insisted that they are not. At this point 
our conversation ceased, so that the Bishop did not further explain 
his position. 

Furthermore, a Protestant Armenian friend, whose father was an 
Armenian priest, told me on that matter that some members of the 
National Armenian Church are Monophysites, while others are not, 
and that Monophysitism is a mere private opinion among them, not 
that of the Armenian Church. 


_ On the other hand Archbishop Megherditch, who is now in com- 
munion with the Church of England, told me in 1878 that the Ar- 
menian National Church is Monophysite. 


I would say, however, that I was informed that divergencies 


62 Chapter IT. 


exist among them, and that discipline is not so vigorously enforced 
among them as it is among the Greeks, which may account for the 
differences on that point and on image worship. 


But 11., they do not recite the Niczean or the Constantinopolitan 
Symbol in the exact and Ecumenically authorized form, but in a 
form which is peculiar, and which contains several additions. 


The Researches of Smith and Dwight show what this is. One of 
them writes as follows: 


‘Bishop Dionysius assures me that the Armenians do not use 
either the Apostles’ or the Athanasian Creed in their church ser- 
vices. ‘The following is a literal translation of their version of the 
Nicene Creed: 


‘““We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of 
heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible: 


‘“*And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; of God the 
Father, z. ¢., of the Father’s substance, the only begotten; God of 
God; Light of Light; very God of very God; begotten, not created; 
consubstantial with the Father; by whom was created everything in 
heaven and in earth, visible and invisible; who for us men, and for 
our salvation, descending from heaven, became incarnate, was made 
man, was perfectly born of the Holy Virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost ; 
whereby he received body, spirit and mind, and whatever is in man, 
really and notinimagination. He suffered, was crucified, and buried ; 
and on the third day he arose; and with that same body ascended to 
heaven; and sat down on the right hand of the Father: with that 
same body and the Father’s glory, he shall come to judge both 
the quick and the dead ; whose kingdom shall have no end. 


‘“ “And we believe in the Holy Ghost, the uncreated, the perfect ; 
who spake in the law, the prophets, and the Gospels; who de- 
scended at Jordan, preached of him that is sent, and dwelt in the 
Saints. 


coe 


And we believe in one only Catholic and Apostolic Church : 
In one baptism for repentance, forgiveness and remission of sins 
In the resurrection of the dead, and the eternal judgment to soul and 
body: In the kingdom of heaven, and the life everlasting.’ See 
Jamakirk.’’ (43). 


(43). Researches of Smith and Dwight in A rmenta, vol. 2, p. 98, note. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 63 


This is not the whole. The only Liturgy in use among the 
Monophysite Armenians adds : 


‘Those who say that there was a time when the Son was not, 
and that there was a time when the Holy Ghost was not, or that they 
have been created out of nothing, or that the Son of God and the 
Holy Ghost are of a different essence, or, further, that they are sub- 
ject to change or to alteration, those are excommunicated by the 
Catholic and Apostolic Church.’’ (44). 


As to ‘‘Jamakirk’’ above mentioned we find it explained, as 
‘the Jamakirk (‘‘Church book’’), which contains the nine services at 
certain hours, which are to be said daily. See Smith and Dwight’s 
Researches, vol. i., p. 181, note. They seem to be the Canonical 
Hours of the Armenians. 


(44). In the Histoire, Dogmes, Traditions et Liturgie de δ᾽ Eglise Armé- 
nienne Orientale, * * * ouvrage traduit du Russe et de 1’ Armenian par M. Edouard 
Dulaurier, Paris, A. D. 1859, which is an account of the Monophysite Armenians, 
this Creed with a rubric preceding is thus given, as in the Liturgy, page 132 : 

‘“‘Tarchdiacre, aussit6t aprés avoir lu l’Evangile, s’approche de Τ᾽ δῖε], a la 
droite du prétre, et, élevant l’Evangile au-dessus de sa téte, récite le symbole de 
Nicée: 

‘Nous croyons en un seul Dieu, Pére tout-puissant, Créateur du ciel et de la 
terre, des choses visibles et invisibles; et en un seul Seigneur, Jésus Christ, Fils 
unique de Dieu, né de Dieu le Pére, avant tous les siécles; Dieu de Dieu, lumi- 
ére de lumiére, vrai Dieu de vrai Dieu, engendré, non créé, consubstantiel au 
Pére, par qui ont été faites toutes choses dans le ciel et sur la terre, visibles et in- 
visibles ; lequel, pour nous autres hommes et pour notre salut, étant descendu du 
ciel, s’est incarné et fait homme, est né de la trés-sainte Vierge Marie par l’opér 
ation du Saint-Esprit, a pris d’elle corps, Ame et esprit, et tout ce qui est dans 
Vhomme, en réalité et non figurativement; quia souffert, a été crucifié et en- 
seveli, et est ressuscité le troisiéme jour ; est monté avec le méme corps au ciel, o 
il est assis A la droite du Pére, d’ot il viendra avec le méme corps, dans la gloire 
du Pére, pour juger les vivants et les morts; et dont le régne n’aura pas de fin. 
Nous croyons aussi au Saint-Esprit, incréé, souverainement parfait, qui a parlé 
dans la loi par les prophétes et dans les Evangiles; qui est decendu au Jourdain 
a annoncé l’Envoyé (le Christ) et a habité dans les saints. 

‘“Nous croyons aussi en une seule Eglise universelle, sainte et apostolique, dun 
baptéme, ἃ la pénitence pour l’expiation et le pardon des péchés, a la résurrec- 
tion des morts, ἃ 1’éternel jugement des Ames et des corps, au royaume des cieux 
et a la vie éternelle. 

“Ceux qui disent qu’il yaeu untempsoi le Fils n’existait pas, et qu’ily aeuun 
temps ot l’Esprit-Saint n’existait pas, ou bien qu’ils ont été créés de rien; ou 
bien que le Fils de Dieu et 1 Esprit-Saint sont d’une essence différente ; ou encore 
qwils sont sujets au changement ou ἃ I’altération: ceux-la sont excommuniés 


64 Chapter 717. 


In the Preface to vol. i. of the same work, Researches in Arme- 
nia, of Smith and Dwight, Dionysius is mentioned as at Malta. 
He is mentioned further: ‘‘ Bishop Dionysius, one of the best 
informed ecclesiastics of the Armenian nation, now attached to the 
American Mission press in that island,’’ and it is added : 


‘Through him were obtained all the extracts from works in 
the Armenian language.’’ Further on we are informed that full 
reliance may be placed upon the faithfulness of his ¢vanslation of 
them into Turkish. In converting them from that language into 
English, no pains have been spared in the use of the best help, to at- 
tain perfect accuracy.”’ 


ul. They agree with the Greeks in rejecting both the words 
‘‘and the Son,’ interpolated into the Symbol in the Occident, and 
the doctrine of the double Procession which they contain (45). 


Iv. They use a confession or creed which savors of Monophysitism, 
though if they receive Canon VII. of Ephesus it seems that they must 
look upon it as not contrary to the fazth of Niceea. And they do 
profess to receive Ephesus. 


We find the first of the daily services of the Armenians de- 
scribed in the work termed Jamakirk. The chief thing in it ger- 
mane to our purpose is the Creed which it contains. We give Smith 
and Dwight’s account : 


“ΑἹ the beginning of the first service in the morning, or rather 
before it begins, the priest, standing with his face to the West, says, 
‘we renounce the devil and all his arts and wiles, his counsel, his 
ways, his evil angels, his evil ministers, the evil executors of his 
will, and all his evil power, renouncing, we renounce.’ 

“Then turning toward the East, he repeats the following 


Creed ; which, as it is peculiar to the Armenian Church, and is ap- 
pealed to by Papists and others as evidence of her heresy, I give 


par ᾽ Eglise catholique et apostolique. On page 175 we are told that the 
Armenians have but one liturgy ; that is the one which contains the above Creed.” 


(45). Southgate’s Visit to the Svrian Church, page 220, note, quoted below. 
See also Histoire, Dogmes, Traditions et Liturgie de δ Eglise Arménienne, 
Ρ. 57, 65, 69, 133. Dr. John Wilson, in his Lands of the Bible, vol. il., p. 483, 
adds his testimony, where testimony is abundant: ‘‘ Like the Gree” writes 
he, ‘‘the Armenians hold that the spirit proceeds from the Father only.” 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 65 


verbatim, omitting a few expressions which decency forbids to be 
published. 


‘““We confess and believe with the whole heart in God the 
Father, uncreated, unbegotten, and without beginning; both beget- 
ter of the Son, and Sender [literally Avoceeder] of the Holy Ghost. 


‘We believe in God the Word, uncreated begotton and begun 
of the Father before all eternity; not posterior nor younger, but as 
long as the Father [is] Father, the Son [is] Son with him. 


‘© “We believe in God the Holy Ghost, uncreated, eternal, unbe- 
gotten but proceeding from the Father, partaking of the Father's 
essence and of the Son’s glory. 


‘““We believe in the Holy Trinity, one substance, one divinity; 
not three Gods, but one God, one will, one kingdom, one dominion, 
Creator of all things visible and invisible. 


‘““We believe in the forgiveneess of sins in the Holy Church, 
with the communion of saints. 


ςς ‘We believe that one of the three Persons, God the Word, was 
before all eternity begotten of the Father, in time descended, * * 
and perfect God, became perfect man, with spirit, soul and body, 
one Person, one attribute, and oxe United Nature: God became man 
without change and without variation. * * * As there is no 
beginning to his Divinity, so there is no end of his Humanity, (for 
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day and forever). We be- 
lieve that our Lord Jesus Christ dwelt upon the earth; after thirty 
years he came to baptism; the Father testified from above, ‘“This is 
my Beloved Son;’’ the Holy Ghost like a dove descended upon him; 
he was tempted of the devil and overcome him; he preached salva- 
tion to men; was fatigued and wearied in body; hungered and thirst- 
ed; afterwards voluntarily came to suffering; was crucified and dead 
in body, and alive in divinity; his body was placed in the grave with 
the divinity united; and in spirit he descended to Hades with the di- 
vinity unseparated: preached to the spirits, destroyed Hades, and 
delivered the spirits; after three days arose from the dead and ap- 
peared to thedisciples. We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ with 
that same body ascended to heaven, and sat down at the right hand 
of the Father; he is also to come with that same body, and with the 


66 Chapter 1. 


Father’s glory, to judge the quick and the dead: which is likewise a 
resurrection to all men. 

‘(We believe also in the reward of works; to the righteous 
everlasting life, and to the wicked everlasting punishment.’’’ (46). 
The Monophysitism of the language italicized is very clear. 

John Mason Neale, on pages 1084 and 1085 of the General Ln- 
troduction to his History of the Holy Eastern Church, gives the above 
Confession in full, but in a translation different in some points from 
the above. I quote it: 


‘““We confess and believe with our whole heart God the Father; 
not made, not begotten, and without beginning; also that the Son 
was begotten by Him, and that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from Him, | 

We believe God the Word, not created but begotten, Who had 
his beginning from the Father before all worlds; Who is not the last 
nor the least: but, as the Father is the Father, so is the Son the Son. 


We believe the Holy Ghost, not created, not of time, not be- 
gotten, but proceeding from the Father; Who is of one substance 
with the Father, and glorified together with the Son. 


We believe the Holy Trinity to be one nature, and one God- 
head. ‘There are not three Gods, but one God; one Will, one 
Kingdom, one Power; the Creator of all things, visible and invisible. 


We believe in the Holy Church, in the remission of sins, and in 
the communion of saints. 


We believe that One of the Three Persons, God the Word, was 
begotten of his Father before all worlds; that in time he descended 
into the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, that he took from her 
blood, and united it with his Godhead; that he abode nine months 
in the womb of the most pure Virgin; and that He was perfect God 
and perfect man, in spirit, in external principle, and in body; that 
He had One Person, one form, and was united zz Oxe Nature. 


God became man without any change or variation; His con- 
ception was without seed, and His birth without corruption. In like 
manner as there is no beginning to his Godhead, so there is no end 
to his Manhood. As Jesus Christ is yesterday and to-day, so will He 
be forever. 


(46). Researches of Smith and Dwight in Armenia, vol.i., p. 182, 183. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 67 


We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ, after thirty years’ pilgrim- 
age on earth, came to be baptized; that His Father gave this testi- 
mony of Him, ‘This is my Beloved Son;’ and that the Holy Ghost, 
in the form of a dove, descended upon Him; that he was tempted by 
Satan, and overcame him; that he preached salvation to men; that 
He experienced the infirmities of the body; that He was wearied, an 
hungered, and athirst; that He went of His own will to suffering; 
that He was crucified and dead in the body, but alive in His God- 
head; that His body, joined to His Godhead, lay in the grave; that 
His spirit, joined to his Godhead, descended into hell, and that he 
preached to the souls, that He spoiled hell, that after three days, 
He rose again from the dead, and set those souls at liberty. 


We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended with that same 
body into Heaven; and that He is seated at the right hand of the 
Father; and that he will come again with the same body, and with 
the glory of His Father, to judge the quick and dead; and that 
there will be a resurrection of all men. 


We believe in a reward according to men’s works; and that the 
righteous shall go into life eternal, and the wicked into everlasting 
punishment.”’ 


On the above Neale remarks: ‘‘ The five first paragraphs of this 
creed appear to be of the most remote antiquity; those which suc- 
ceed clearly refer to the great controversies on tke Incarnation. ‘The 
seventh appears to have borrowed the expression, ‘His conception 
was without seed, and His birth was without corruption,’ from the 
words of S. Proclus, in his celebrated sermon on the Incarnation, 
(March 25, 429,) ‘without human passion He entered; without hu- 
man corruption He came forth.’ ‘The last clause of the confession 
seems imitated from the conclusion of the Athanasian Creed. In 
this confession there are two expressions which are suspicious; * * * 
and one that, on the plain face of the words, is flatly heretical; that 
Fle was united in One Nature. And this, where it occurs, is worse 
than in many cases; because the one person has just before been 
mentioned.”’ 


v. They use neither the Western Creed, termed the Apostles’, 
nor the Athanasian, in their Church Services. 


Hither Smith or Dwight writes: ‘‘Bishop Dionysius’’ [an Ar- 


68 Chapter 71]. 


menian Prelate] ‘‘ assures me that the Armenians do not use either 
the Apostles’ or the Athanasian Creed in their Church Services.”’ (47). 

John Mason Neale, page 1083 of the General Introduction to his 
History of the Holy Eastern Church, says that now the Armenian 
Church ‘‘possesses * * * the Apostles’ * * * and the Athan- 
asian Creeds,’’ and that ‘‘/¢ probably received’’ them “through 
Rome.’ It certainly did if it has them at all, and it is clear to me 
that the Armenians asa church cannot be said to fossess them in 
the sense of making any use of them; nor, I think, in the sense of 
having taken any Synodical action on either of them. Neale is not 
always reliable. 

He mentions besides a Confession of Faith of Gregory of Narek, 
of about A. D. 950, three more of Narcissus of Klaens of about A. 
D. 1170, and one of Narcissus of Lambron of A. D. 1177; all of 
which are individual explanations of the Armenian Confession last 
given above. That with the Nicene are chief with them. 

Before closing on the Armenians, I would say that, with all 
their faults, they were long superior to the Greeks in freedom from 
the use and abuse of images, for they long retained the primitive 
aversion to their use, with the exception, however, of the Cross. 
Gibbon in Chapter XLIX. of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Em- 
pire (page 367, volume, v., of Bohn’s seven-volume edition of A. Ὁ. 
1854), writes: 

‘The Armenians, the most warlike subjects of Rome, were not 
reconciled in the twelfth century, to the sight of images.”’ 

In a note to that sentence, on the same page, Gibbon quotes 
from Nicetas, an idolater, a Greek, 1. 2, p. 258, a passage which I 
translate: 

‘The worship of the holy pictures is forbidden by the Arme- 
nians.’” 

In the same note, Gibbon, writing in the last quarter of the 
eighteenth century, adds: 

‘The Armenian Churches are still content with the Cross (Mis- 
sions du Levant, tom. 111., p. 148).”’ 

Yet in a visit to the East in 1869, and againin A. D. 1878, I saw 
Armenian churches where there were images; one in 1878, in Kilis, 


(47). See Researches of Smith and Dwight in Armenia, vol, 2, p. 98, note. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 69 


I think, where I think I saw only one; and one in Smyrna, where 
there were quite a number, one in the main aisle placed there to be 
worshipped as in some Greek churches, though I did not see any one 
worshipping it for there was no service at the time. Yet I was told 
that in some places they had banished all the images out of the 
churches except that of Gregory, the Apostle of Armenia. 


The Armenians, in most or all of the churches which I saw, had 
no Iconostasis, but only the veil before the chancel, which belongs to 
the primitive local Oriental Rite. In that they are truer to the once 
universal rite of the Kast than most of the Greeks, who, in nearly 
every or every instance that I saw, had defiled their chancel with the 
idolatrous medizeval innovation of the abominable image-stand, that 
is Iconostasis. ‘This is the more to’ be regretted because as it seems 
to have been originally intended to imitate the veil in the Jewish 
Temple, inside of which the priests alone could pass, the turning it 
into an imiage-stand is a prostitution and change of it. 


I once wondered why we should so uniformly and so early find 
the veil before the Holy Place in an Eastern Church and never in a 
Western one. It seems to me that the explanation is to be found in 
the fact that in Palestine as we are told in Acts vi., 7, as it is in the 
Greek, not ‘‘a great company’ only, but “A great crowd of the 
priests, were obedient to the faith.’’ And as probably many or most 
of them, in accordance with Christ’s warnings, fled from Jerusalem 
and out of Palestine before Jerusalem was besieged by Titus, they 
were preserved, and after the destruction of the temple, after they 
had been ordained to be members of the non-carnal, the spiritual, 
and because spiritual, therefore the far higher Christian priest- 
hood, they used the veil before the new Holy Places, in 
the more excellent worship, as they had used it before the 
Holy Place of the Mosaic sanctuary in the ‘‘ Carnal ordi- 
nances tmposed on them until the time of Reformation,’’ Heb. ix., το. 
And so the use of the veil passed into general use in the East where 
those Christain Sons of Aaron lived; but it never came into use in the 
West where the Sons of Aaron had never lived. Bingham gives an 
account of the primitive Oriental veil in his Antiquities of the Christ- 
tan Church, book viii., chapter vi., section 8. It should be restored in 
all Eastern Communions where it has been superseded and banished 
by the idolatrous iconostasis. It has been more disused in the Greek 


70 Chapter 71. 


Church than in any other Oriental Communion, for the crazy Greek 
image-worshippers, like the heathen of old, whom God rebuked, were 
‘“mad upon their idols,’’ Jeremiah J,., 38, and hated the plain and yet 
suggestive veil of the early Greek Church and did it away wherever 
they could, ‘That veil suggests memories οὗ holy worship reaching 
back in the East to the beginning of Christianity. 


Yet it should never be introduced into the West which has never 
had it, and which glories in its open chancel and visible rites so dear 
to its people, from the first century of the Christian era and from the 
first preaching of Christ among them, ‘The nearest thing to the 
Oriental veil before the chancel or holy place is the Rood Screen of 
the Middle Ages, but no cross was used in the primitive Western 
Church, nor indeed in any part of Christendom, as we show elsewhere, 
and so if the so-called Rood Screen is used at Festivals, it should be 
without any cross or image. 


Theorian’s remark which I find on page 1052 of Neale’s Lasterz 
Church, General Introduction, is true if it be limited to Ante-Nicene 
local customs, not extended to those which began later: I translate it: 


‘‘For all things are good, if we do them to the glory of God; 
for neither the church custom of the Latins, nor Ours, has received 
and keeps any thing but what is good and useful.’’ 


Let the East therefore keep its peculiarly Eastern customs which 
it has held from the Apostles, and keep them as pure as they were at 
first: 


And on the other hand let the West keep its peculiarly Western 


customs which it has held from the Apostles, and keep them: pure 
as they were at first. 


Let there be no mixing of Eastern and Western customs any 
where, for that brings trouble and confusion. 


Only, let all Westerns and Easterns, keep 41] the decisions of 
the Six World-Synods, and all the Universal do¢trine, discipline, 
rite and custom, which have been held ‘‘ d/lways, everywhere, and 
by all.’’ 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. ὙΠ] 


SECTION 5. 


AMONG THE SYRIAN JACOBITES, THAT IS MONOPHYSITES. 


REFERENCES, 


The Lands of the Bible, by John Wilson, D. D., Edinburgh, A. D. 
1847, vol. ii., p. 506 and thereafter. 

Rev. Horatio Southgate’s Viszt to the Syrian Church, New York, 
1856, especially the Preface. 

Josephi Simonii Assemani, De Syris Monophysitis Dissertatio, 
Rone A. 19. 17730. 

J. W. Etheridge, Zhe Syrian Churches and Gospels, 1846. 

The general sameness of the Armenian and Syrian Monophysite 
beliefs may be inferred from what an Armenian bishop told Dr. Wolff 
as quoted above, and from the Syrians being the co-religionists of the 
Armenians. 

Further testimony follows: 


Dr. John Wilson writes: (48) ‘‘ The church authorities to which 
they look may be ascertained from the following passage which occurs 
in their Liturgy for the Mass: 


‘“<« We openly acknowledge the three holy, pure, and Catholic 
Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, in which were our 
fathers, holy, exalted, and God-fearing Malpans. We remember 
holy James, the head of the Metrans’’’ [that is, Metropolitans], 
‘“¢and the first in Jerusalem, an apostle and martyr: Ignatius, 
Clemens, Dionysius, Athanasius, Julius, Basil, Gregory, Dioscorus, 
Timothy, Philoxenus, Antonius, Evanius, and particularly our father 
Cyril, who was a lofty and true wall, and the professor who openly 
acknowledged the manhood of the Son of God. We remember our 
patriarch Severus (49), the Crowh of the Syrians, a skilful orator, 
a pillar and doctor of all the holy churches of God, and our 
holy father St. James [Jacob Baradzeus], the precursor of the true 
faith, holy Ephraim’ our master, St. James, (50), St. Barsumas the 


(48). In his Lands of the Bible, vol. 2, p. 507, and thereafter. 
(49). The notorious heresiarch. 


(50). Wilson in a note here adds, ‘‘of Nisibis? The Syrians have so many 
persons of this name that it is difficult to identify the person here referred to.”’ 


72 Chapter IT, 


head of the Mourners, St. Simeon the Stylite, the chosen St. Abeia, 
and those who, either before or after them, left, handed down, or 
taught us a right and pure faith ’ 


‘This passage,it is to be observed, makes no mention of Kutyches, 
who is alleged to have mantained that, ‘the divine nature of Christ 
had absorbed the human, and that consequently in him there was but 
one nature, viz.: the divine: while it mentions with reverence some 
of the principal supporters of the allied sect of Monophysites, who 
taught that the divine and human nature[s?] of Christ were so united 
as to form only one nature, yet without any change, confusion, or 
mixtures of the two natures.’ The name of Barsumas the famous 
Nestorian, [Monophysite, not Nestorian] too, finds in it a place. * * * 
The ministers of the Syrian Church whom I have met in the East 
have generally expressed themselves when endeavoring to explain 
their views, in a manner not very inconsistent with orthodoxy. The 
union of the natures of Christ is so complete, they have said, that 
there is unity in these natures. ‘The Godhead and Manhood of Christ 
however, being unchanged, there is still duality. To ourexplanation, 
—the unity is that of oneness of Person, while the two natures are still 
distinct, they generally in the end have not objected.”’ 


He remarks further that ‘‘the Syrians indignantly disclaim all 
connection with Eutyches’’ (51). 

‘“The Syrian Christians call themselves Jacobites. When in- 
terrogated as to the reason of their appropriation of this denomina- 
tion, they generally allege that they are the descendants of Jacob or 
Israel; that they are the descendants of the earliest converts of the 
Apostle James: and ¢hat they are the adherents of the Monk Bardaz, 
Jacob Baradaeus or Baradat, who died, Bishop of Orfa (Edessa) in 
Mesopotamia in the year 558, and who, during his active career, was 
so successful in reuniting the Monophysite sects throughout the 
whole of the East.’’ (52), 

Bishop Southgate remarks of the Syrian Jacobites that ‘‘ They 
are not properly called ELutycheans, both because they do not hold 
the doctrine of Eutyches, and because they condemn and anathe- 


(51). Wilson’s Lands of the Bible, vol. 2, p. 507, and thereafter. 
(52). Id., vol. 2, p. 507. Compare Bishop Southgate’s Visit to the Syrian 
Church, Preface, p. 4, which favors them. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Couneis. (a 


matize the heretic himself. Not only do they positively declare this 
in all their conversations, but every Bishop, at his consecration, pro- 
nounces a form of anathema upon Eutyches.’’ (53). 

‘‘ We proceed now,’’ continues Bishop Southgate, ‘‘ to show what 
their real doctrine is, and ; 


κα They do zof hold the do¢trine of the absorption of the human 
into the divine nature, in Christ. This was the heresy of Eutyches 
which was condemned by the Fourth General Council. ‘The Syrians 
reject this doctrine altogether, not only in their words, but in their 
standards, and every Bishop, at his consecration, is required to de- 
nounce and anathematize it. 


‘©. They do zof hold to the mingling or confusion of the two 
natures in Christ, but discard the doctrine and speak most strongly 
and unequivocally against it, as do also their ancient writers, Bar 
Hebraeus, forexample. Thus, I have frequently heard them use such 
comparisons as these: that the two natures are not mingled, as we 
say that wine and water are mingled; nor does the one pervade 
the other, as we say that leaven diffuses itself through the lump. 


“4. To speak affirmatively, they distinétly and clearly hold 
that there are two natures in Christ, the Divine and the Human, 
and that these two natures are in the incarnation brought together in 
one, not mingled, nor confounded, but united. But, 


«4. ‘They say that the result of this union is most properly 
described as one nature Up to this point they seem to agree with 
us, but here, in words at least, they differ. They do not, however, 
deny the truth of our own do¢trine—that the two are united in 
one person—but admit it. Yet they say this is not enough, for it 
does not sufficiently express a real and indivisible union. To the 
whole of our second article those to whom I have shown it, cordially 
agree, but they think it stops short of the full expression, and that it 
would more exactly describe their own do¢trine if the word xature 
were substituted for, or added to, the word ferson. ‘Thus they say 
that the two whole and perfect natures were joined together in one 
nature as well as in one Jerson. What now do they mean by this? 


ἐς And here I will say that I have never been able to discover 
the slighest difference between their meaning of the word ature 


(53). Southgate’s Visit to the Syrian Church, Preface, p. 4. 


74 Chapter 77. 


when used to express the result of the union of the two natures 
in Christ, and our meaning of the word fevson, when soused. Iwill 
not positively affirm that there is no difference, (for this is a subject 
on which I feel extremely diffident of my own judgment), but I 
do say that I cannot comprehend the difference, if it exists. After 
discussions almost innumerable with their Patriarch, Bishops and 
othe: clergy, (for it is a matter to which they frequently rect), 
it does seem to me that what they wish to assert by the oneness 
of zatuve in Christ, is precisely what we assert by the oneness of 
person. Why then, do they use a different term? Because they 
imagine that the word jfevson implies only an outward presence, 
as used by us, while the words one nature, with them, imply an 
inward and real union, by which the one Christ is spoken of as 
a single individual, from whom, as from one, all his words and 
aStions proceed. ‘Thus they say, (to illustrate this union), it was 
the same Christ who performed miracles, and who ate and drank—in 
both actions the same individual Christ. Yet they acknowledge that 
some actions belong to him»as divine, others belong to him as 
human. For example, they assert it was Christ in his humanity who 
suffered upon the cross, but to guard, again, against the notion of a 
separation of natures, they add, the Christ who suffered upon the 
cross was divine, for he forgave the penitent thief and promised him 
Paradise, and the Scriptures also say that God gave his only begotten 
Son to die for us. ‘They say, moreover, that generally the actions of 
Christ are to be affirmed of Him as one—one by the indivisible union 
ofthe two natures. Thus they use illustrations like these, which I 
have recorded from their own lips: it was Christ who asked where 
Lazarus lay ; it was also Christ who raised him from the dead ; it 
was Christ who was sleeping in the storm; it was also Christ who 
calmed its rage. In each case appear by different acts His Humanity 
and His Divinity. He inquired and He slept as man; He raised the 
dead and allayed the tempest as God; for this he did, not as an in- 
strument, like the Apostles, but in his own power. Yet both the one 
and the other belong to the single individual Christ. They condemn 
Hutyches for confounding these two natures, and Nestorius for sepa- 
rating them, and they refer to the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, 
especially his Zwelve Letters [Chapters ?] against Nestorius, as giving 
a true exposition of their doctrine. 

‘“They think that their mode of stating the union of the two na- 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 75 


tures is necessary, in order to guard against the doctrine of their 
existing distinétly in the same person, or under the same outward 
presence, for so they declare they understand the word person as here 
used. ‘They supposed our doctrine, or rather the Latin, for of us 
they had known nothing, to be nearly the same with that of Nestorius, 
viz.: that two natures act separately and independently of each 
other, asin two individuals (54). They were, therefore, agreeably 
surprised with the definition of our Second Article, which declares 
that ‘the two natures were joined together in one person, never to be 
divided, whereof is one Christ ;’ only they thought that the word 
person, * * asused by the Latins, denoted alone the outward and 
visible appearance, and that to say merely that the two natures are 
in one fersoz, meant only that they coexist under one outward pres- 
ence. The statement, therefore, of our Article, that they are joined 
together, and never to be divided, and that of this union is oxe Christ, 
seemed to present to them a new view of the Western faith, as re- 
cognizing under the outward presence, the very union of natures which 
they wish to affirm by calling the result ature instead of Jerson. 
They seemed never to have looked upon the one person of the West- 
ern Creed as the result of the union of the two natures ; but only as 
the external form which enclosed or contained them. In other words, 
they were not aware of our asserting an actual joining together of 
the two natures, but only of their coexistence under one presence. 
Nor were they at first willing to take this view of the Western Creed, 
when I pressed it upon them, for it led at once to the conclusion 
that they had been separated from the great body of the Christian 
Church for so many centuries causelessly. On the contrary, they at 
first endeavored to show that there must be a difference, as this 
alone would justify their separation, but finally in every instance 
they came to the conclusion, that if there was any it was too subtil 
to be apprehended. ‘Thus, I was once called upon to act as arbitrator 
between a Syrian Papal Bishop and two Syrian Bishops, who met for 
a discussion of this subject, the nature of Christ. The conference 
continued for three successive days, and at the conclusion the two 
Syrian Bishops unanimously declared that they saw no real dif- 
ference between the Syrian and Western belief, that it was a mere 


(54). There are certainly two wills in Christ. The Monothelite heresy op- 
posed to this do&trine was condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Synod. 


76 Chapter 7 


logomachy, and that they were ready to assent to and affirm the 
Western tenet as their own and to enter into intercommunion, so 
far as this was concerned, with the Western Church. No other diffi- 
culty, they thought, remained with regard to the Church of England 
and our own ; but as for the Latin, they could not acknowledge the 
supremacy of the Pope. This is only one case out of perhaps 
fifty which I have been acquainted with, all which seemed to reach 
the same conclusion. I say, then, that there is great reason to be- 
lieve that the Syrians do not in reality differ from us on the nature 
of Christ ; and I may add, that the voice of History, to any one who 
will carefully consider the circumstances attending the separation in 
Syria subsequent to the Fourth General Council, must, I think, 
speak the same language. Upon the historical argument, however, 
I can not here enter. But 


“6, ‘The Syrian Church rejects and condemns the Fourth Ecu- 
menical Council, and also Leo, the Bishop of Rome, whose Epistle 
was approved by the Council. Every Syrian Bishop, at his conse- 
cration, is required to anathematize both him andthe Council. They 
also defend Dioscorus, who was condemned by that Council, but not 
Eutyches, as I have said, nor his heresy. These they reject’as 
strongly and clearly as the Council itself. Why, then, do they not 
receive the Council nor its Decrees? ‘The reason, they say, is be- 
cause it acted unjustly and violently towards Dioscorus, who, they 
affirm, did not hold the heresy of Eutyches; and they condemn Leo 
because, as they say, he was the principal instigator of the proceed- 
ing against Dioscorus. Yet they do not pretend to defend Dioscorus 
in his violent and intemperate proceedings at the Pseudo-Council of 
Ephesus, A. ἢ. 449. They do not approve of that Council, nor the 
object of Dioscorus in obtaining it, which was to effect a reversal of 
the sentence against Eutyches, passed by the Council convened in 
Constantinople the preceding year. They do not agree with Dios- 
corus in his defence of Eutyches, but they affirm that he did not hold 
the same doctrine with Eutyches, and that the action of the Council 
of Chalcedon against him was excessively severe and unjust, since 
not for clear heresy, but for a mere act of imprudence, [! !] which 
they also acknowledge him to have been guilty of, he was condemned 
and deposed by a General Council. 


“The Syrian rejection of the Council, therefore, does notimply a — 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 7 


dereliction from the faith, [!!], but rather, (may we not hope?) a 
mere dissatisfaction with the Synod for certain alleged improprieties 
in its action, while they agree with the Synod in the main object 
of its proceedings, and in the main action itself, which was the 
condemnation of Kutyches. ‘The Syrian Bishops before referred to, 
entirely approved the declaration of faith put forth by the Council, 
and were willing, after reading it, (they had never seen it or heard 
of it before), to declare their assent to it, and also to recognize the 
Council, with a single salvo concerning the treatment of Dioscorus. 
he Syrians, I may add, receive, without any exception, the first 
three General Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and 
the several minor councils approved by the Council of Chalcedon. 
They have also, and use daily, the Nicene Creed, and acknowledge 
the Apostolical Constitutions and Canons. What more can we 
asker?’ (55). . 
We have given all this because we would show what is the 
present position of these heretics. 


But we remark, 1, that Bishop Southgate was writing as the 
apologist of these Monophysites, and his aim was to prove that 
‘ultimately there might be intercommunion between the Anglican 
Communion and them. ‘That was his motive, and it led him to 
give a rose color hue to their views. 


2. He shows ignorance of the true status of this question in 
certain respects. ‘Thus for instance he says: ‘‘They * * * 
acknowledge the Apostolical Constcfutions and Canons. What more 
can we ask?’’ ‘This is the first time we have seen the spurious 
or interpolated Apostolical Constitutions mentioned asa matter to 
be asked of any Church. For neither the Greek Church, which 
receives the so-called Apostolical Canons, nor the Latin Church, 
receives the Constitutions. 


3. He does injustice to the Council of Chalcedon and therefore to 
the Universal Church by his statement that the Syrian Monophysites 
were not really guilty of Monophysitism, and that ‘‘the voice of 
history, to any one who will carefully consider the circumstances 
attending the separation in Syria subsequent to the Fourth General 
Council, must, I think, speak the same language.’’ The facts of 


(55). Southgate’s Visit to the Syrian Church, Preface, p. 6-9. 


78 Chapter 77. 


that period, and even the testimony of Bishop Southgate himself, 
prove the contrary. For he shows that they hold to but ove Nature 
after the incarnation, and that is manifest heresy, and is contradicted 
by the Normal Epistle of Leo I., to Flavian, which the Church 
approved at Chalcedon. Nor does the excuse that they do not 
understand the term ‘‘ Wature’’ suffice, for their whole language of 
explanation shows that they do. For they reject the idea of 
confounding or mingling the Natures, they speak of two Natures 
befére the Incarnation, and indeed their whole language accords with 
the notion that they understand in the main the use of the term 
ες Nature,’ and even when the language of the Ecumenical Council 
is explained to them, as it has been for more than fourteen hundred 
years, they still continue to reject it. It will not do to say, therefore, 
that their heresy is the result of ignorance. Moreover the Syrian 
Monophysite statement that ‘‘¢he aétion of the Council of Chalcedon 
against’’ Dioscorus, ‘‘ was excessively severe and ungzust, since not for 
clear heresy, but for a mere act of imprudence, which they also 
acknowledge him to have been guilty of, he was condemned and deposed 
by a General Council’’ (56), is decidedly rich, when one remembers his 
outrageous violence at the Robbers’ Council of Ephesus, A. D. 449, 
over which he presided, and the testimony given against him on that 
account and others at Chalcedon about two years later. Indeed 
this very Preface which we are considering brands Dioscorus’ pro- 
ceedings at the Latrocinium as ‘“‘vzolent and intemperate.”’ (57). 


But we turn not to mere unsupported opinions but to stern 
facts as to the present belief of the Syrian Monophysites. 


1. ‘“TheSyrians * * * receive, without any exception, the 
first three General Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, 
and the several minor councils approved by the Council of Chalce- 
don.’’ (58). But I surmise that the reason why they receive these 
‘“minor councils,’ must be something else than that they were 
sanctioned by the Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon. If the Canons 
of the ‘‘mznor councils’? referred to, be those received into the 
Ecumenical Code by Canon 1., of Chalcedon, that is those of Ancyra, 
Neoceesarea, Gangra, Antioch, and Laodicea, the reason why they 


(56). Southgate’s Visit to the Syrian Church, Preface, p. 9. 
(57). Ibid. 
(58). Southgate’s Visit to the Syrian Church, Preface, p. 9. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 79 


are accepted by the Syrian Jacobites is probably the fact that they 
were in use in the Orient before Chalcedon, A. D. 451, as is evident 
from the proceedings of that Council. Indeed, we find in A. D. 404, 
the twelfth Canon of Antioch quoted as authoritative outside of the 
jurisdiction of Antioch, even in Constantinople; and Chrysostom 
was deposed by some for violating it, or foran alleged violation of it. 
See on that Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, 
volume i., page 528, left-hand column. 


‘They have also, and use daily, the Nicene Creed.’’ (59). 
They must vecezve, I judge therefore, the Creed cf the First Ecumeni- 
cal Synod and that of the Second, and the two Normal Epistles of 
Cyril of Alexandria, which were approved by Ephesus A. D. 431. 


2. “The Syrian Church rejects and condemns the Fourth 
Ecumenical Council and also Leo I., the Bishop of Rome, whose 
Epistle was approved by the Council. Every Syrian Bishop, at his 
consecration, is required to amathematize both him and the Council. 
They also defend Dioscorus, who was condemned by the Courcil, 
but not Eutyches, as I have said, nor his heresy. ‘These they reject 
as strongly and as clearly as the Council itself.’’ (60). 


They must therefore reject the Normal Epistle of St. Cyril of 
Alexandria to John of Antioch, and that of Pope Leo I. of Rome to 
Flavian of Constantinople, and the Definition put forth by Chalcedon. 


3. ‘As teachers or saints they regard Jacob of Sarug, Jacob of 
Edessa, Dioscorus, Severus, P. Fullo and Jacob Baradai; they reject 
Eutyches.’’ (61). 


4. As to the question whether they receive the Robbers’ Synod 
of Ephesus, A. D. 449, there is a difference. Bishop Southgate 
writes: ‘‘’They do not pretend to defend Dioscorus in his violent and 
intemperate proceedings at the Pseudo-Council of Ephesus, A. D. 
449. ‘They do not approve of that Council, nor the object of Dios- 
corus in obtaining it, which was to effect a reversal of the sentence 
against Eutyches, passed by the Council convened in Constantinople 
the proceeding year.’’ (62). But Roedigerin Herzog’s Theol. and 
(gg). Ibid. 

(60). Ibid. 
(61). Herzog’s Theol. and Eccl. Encyclopedia, Bomberger’s edition, Phila., 


A. D. 1860, under Jacobites. 
(62). Southgate’s Visit to the Syrian Church, Preface, p. 9. 


80 Chapter 7. 


Fed. Encyc. ed. Phila., A. Ὁ. 1860, article ‘‘ Jacobites,”’ asserts: ‘They 
recognize the Second Synod of Ephesus.’’ 


5. As the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Synods approve Chalce- 
don, and are connected with it, the Jacobites must reject them for 
that reason. 


6. They reject both the interpolation /ilzogue in the Symbol, 
and the Western dodtrine contained in that term. (63). This 
Bishop Southgate positively states in his V7szt to the Syrian Church, 
p. 220, as quoted by us above, page 22, when treating on the subject | 
of the Greek Church. In the same work, p. 219-221, he mentions a 
conversation with the Syrian Monophysite Patriarch on this topic. 
We quote from this part what is germane to our purpose: ‘‘I can 
not omit, however, one conversation with the Patriarch upon the 
vexed question of the Procession. * * * JI shall have more to 
say of it at another time. At present I will only allude to the 
manner in which the Patriarch spoke of it. He commenced with - 
long metaphysical argument intended to prove that the Holy Ghost 
could not proceed both from the Father and the Son, without involv- 


(63). See note, 45, p 64. J. S. Assemani De Syris Monophysitis Dis- 
sertatio,Romae, A. D. 1730, p. 15, 16, on the do¢trine held by the Syrian 
Monophysites on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, remarks: *‘In Trinitatis 
mysterio antesignani eorum hand sibi conveniunt. Nam Xenajas et Bar- 
Hebraeus, ut et nunnulli recentiores, Spiritum sanctum ex Filio procedere ne- 
gant. Affirmat Dionysius III., Patriarcha, in Epistola Synodica ad Mennam 
Alexandrinum, ubi ait: Pater a nullo habet existentiam sed per seripsum ex- 
istit ingenilus: Filius est genitus a Patre ab aeterno. Spiritus sanctus pro- 
manat ex FPatre et Filio,’’ [But this may refer to the temporal procession from 
the Son]. ‘‘Enimvero, ut recte advertit Renaudotius (tom. 2., Liturg. 
Orient., p. 72), religui magno numero Jacobitae, gquamvis additio Filioque z/lis 
non probetur, non tamen Graecorum exemplo adversus Latinos tam acriter 
invehuntur: nam quaecumque inter utrosque hujus quaestionts occastone trans- 
acta sunt, Orientales penitus ignoravere, nec ad se pertinere arbitrati sunt. 
Renaudot then contends from certain expressions in certain of their Liturgies 
that those works teach the doctrine of the Procession from the Son. 


But as to the other passages which the Latin Renaudot adduces, Assemant 
in this place shows that the celebrated Jacobite writer, Bar Hebraeus, takes them 
in the sense of ‘“‘the ¢emporal and external manifestation of the Holy 
Spirit through the Son,’’ and disapproves of the Occidental sense. One par- 
ticular expression only, cited by him, seems to favor the Latin dogma. Speak- 
ing of the Liturgical works of the Syrians Renaudot writes: ‘‘Sometimes, they 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 81 


ing the difficulty of two persons in the Holy Spirit. I replied that, 
according to the Anglican belief, it did not seen necessary to assert 
that the Procession from the Father and from the Son, was the same; 
that the Procession from the Father might be in his sense of the 
term, and that from the Son in the character of a messenger.’’ 


add, ‘He receives those things which pertain to his essence,’ which sentiment 
departs not much from the Theology of the Latins.’? The Latin is: aliquando 
addunt, accipit ea quae ad illius essentiam pertinent, quae sententia a Latinorum 
Theologia non multum abit. Seeit in J. S. Assemani, de Syris Monophysites 
Dissertatio, Romae, A. D. 1730, p. 16. 


But regarding this 1, it seems very doubtful whether, although this passage 
accipit ea, etc., is ztalicized, it is meant to be an exact translation, or only what 
Renaudot concetves to be the sense of one or many passages. I judge the letter 
from the answer of Bar-Hebreaeus, Moreover, Renaudot as here quoted, gives 
no reference to the original; a very important lack, so that we can not determine 
exactly his intention. The words are so strong in the Latin that they seem to 
settle the question that some of the Syrian Monophysites have used language 
favoring the Latin doctrine of the Double Procession. But from the considera- 
tions mentioned above, and from the testimony of Bishop Southgate, an impar- 
tial witness, it seems best to hold this passage sub judice until we ascertain 
more of the facts as to Renaudot’s intention, and until we are pointed to the 
original references in proof, for they alone can decide this question. We shall 
be the more inclined to do this when we recollect the tendency of some Latin 
theologians to interpret the Easterns in a sense which they at once repudiate as 
wrong, and both Renaudot and Assemani were members of the Latin communion. 


2. But what is of chief importance is that Bar-Hebraeus, the noted Jacobite 
historian and theologian, who was Maphrian or Primas Orientis after A. D. 
1264, interprets it in the Eastern sense and condemns the Western interpretation. 
See J. A. Assemani, de Syris Monophysites Dissertatio, A. D. 1730, p. 16. As to 
Bar-Hebraeus himself, see Smith’s Gzeseler’s Church History, vol. ii., p. 617. 
Assemani, as last cited, remarks of the mode of speaking above: cujus loquu- 
tionis vim enervare nequit indigna Theologo illa Bar-Hebraeiinterpretatio, de tem- 
porali et externa Spiritus Sancti per Filium manifestatione aientis: Quam pro- 
cessio sit proprietas Spiritus Sancti, cur additur in Theologia, quod a Filio 
accipit 2? Dicimus, ratione mantfestationis ad creaturas specialissime dici, quod 
Spiritus a Filio accipit. Quod vero a nonnullis asseritur, ipsum seilicet virtu- 
tem, aut potestatem, aut voluntatem, aut aliud hnjusmodi accipere, haud aequa 
est opinio. But surely the Monophysites can tell best what they mean, and im- 
partial writers like Bishop Southgate, and Roediger (Art: Jacobites in Herzog’s 
Theol. and Eccl. Encyc.,) state that they reject the Latin doctrine. Roediger 
in his article under the title ‘‘Jacodites’”’ in Herzog’s Theol. and Eccl. Encye. 
states: ‘‘That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, is denied by Xanajas ; 
the Syrian Church, however, remained wholly unaffected by the controversy 
concerning the /iliogue.”’ 


82 Chapter 71. 


[This accords with the Greek belief against the Latins. This Greek 
belief Bishop Southgate held, so at least we may infer from this]. 
‘The Patriarch answered that this was the doctrine of Scripture and 
the belief of his own Church, that if it was also the belief of the 
Western Church, there was on this point no difference between us,’’ 
[but it certainly is not the belief of the Latin Church], ‘‘ but he still 
thought that it would be safer to use the language of the Evangelist, 
‘proceeding from the Father, and sent by the Son.’’’ On this last 
clause Bishop Southgate adds in a note on page 221, ‘‘ The Patriarch 
alluded to the passage in John xv., 26, ‘But when the comforter 
is come, whom 7) wll send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit 
of Truth which proceedeth from the Father.” 


On the words ‘‘ could not proceed both from the Father and the 
Sonz,’’ Bishop Southgate remarks in a note at the foot of page 220: 
‘“This, however, implies nothing with regard to Procession. ‘The 
Eastern Christians freely acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is both 
of the Father and the Son. They only deny that He proceeds from 
both. He is of the Father, they say, by Procession, and of the 
Son, by JMZsston, giving to Procession a definite and limited 
meaning, viz: that of zssuizmg; and to mzsston that of being 
sent as a messenger. ‘Thus they commonly express their 
belief, in these words: ‘Proceeding from the Father, and sent by the 
Son.’ ‘They allow, however, Procession from the Son in a different 
sense from that of the Procession from the Father. ‘The latter is 
Hypostatical or Personal; the former external or official. After 
an admission of this kind it is difficult to see what matter for con- 
troversy remains.’’ ‘The Bishop means between those who hold his 
view and the Easterns. At least so I take it. For it would bea 
strange remark for a professed theologian to make regarding the 
difference between the Easterns and the Latins. For the do¢trine of 
the Latin Communion is that the Holy Ghost’s divine Substance 
proceeds eternally, both from the Father azd the Son. But the 
Easterns assert that the Holy Ghost’s divine Substance proceeds from 
the Father alone, not from the Son. ‘here is certainly ground for 
difference here, so long at least, as men will interpolate the Filioque 
into the Symbol without an Ecumenical Synod. 


Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitza, and Rector of the Ecclesiastical 
Academy of St. Petersburg, expresses the Greek view on the Pro- 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 83 


cession in his 7héologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe, Paris, A. D. 1859, 
t. I, p. 326: and the doctrine of the Syrian Monophysites, as stated 
by their Patriarch, is exactly like it; so that there can be no doubt 
that on this point they are with the Greeks and against the Latins. 


Another point may well be noted. None of the Six Ecumenical 
Synods defined that the birth of God the Word out of the Father 
was efernal, but they have limited themselves to the statement of the 
Creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod, that He was ‘‘ born out of 
the Father before all the worlds,’ (τὸν "ex τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων 
τῶν aidywy), ‘The idolatrous conventicle of Niczea of A. D. 787, 
which the image-worshiping and creature-invoking party, which 
now controls the Greek Church, calls the Seventh, goes no farther. 
Nor indeed have I been able to find in the later, local utterances 
of parts of the Greek Church, or in the utterances of individual 
Confessions in it, any distinct profession of the doctrine that the 
birth of the Son out of the Father was eternal. They all seem to 
rest content with the words of the Creed which I have quoted above. 


Hence I do not think it can justly be said that the Greek 
Communion has gone beyond the earliest doctrine on that matter 
which we find in St. Justin the Martyr, and in St. Theophilus of 
Antioch, that the Logos Coeternal and Consubstantial with the 
Father, was born out of him, noteternally, but just before the worlds 
were made, and to be the Father’s instrument in making them. 
While the Logos was in the Father, He was, according to St. 
Theophilus 6 Adyog ᾿ενδιάθετος, ‘the Word in and through the Father.” 
When He came out of the Father He became ὁ Adyos προφοριχός, that 
is ‘‘the Word borne forth.’ ‘That coming out was the birth of God 
the Word, who had been eternally in the Father. 


But the celebrated Catechist of Alexandria, Origen, started 
afterwards the view of the Eternal Birth, and was followed in that 
notion by the two great lights of the Alexandrian school, Athanasius 
and Cyril. In the middle ages the schoolmen who knew Athanasius 
better than they did the earlier Greek Fathers, adopted his view, 
and it was current and prevalent in the West at the time of the 
Reformation in the Sixteenth Century, and so passed, without 
investigation seemingly, into different Reformed Confessions; for 
instance into Article II., of the Church of England. 


84 Chapter IT. 


The Easterns, however, have never put into any of their Con- 
fessions, at least not so far as I know, any condemnation of the 
doctrine of St. Justin the Martyr, and of St. Theophilus of Antioch, 
nor have the Greeks pronounced in any Synod any formal approval ofthe 
opposing local Alexandrian view. Of course the earlier view agrees 
best with the Greek doctrine that the Holy Ghost has come out 
of the Father alone, and by necessary implication condemns the 
Latin notion that He has come out of the Father and the Son e¢ernally. 


It agrees also with the Anathema in the Creed of the First 
Ecumenical Synod against ‘‘ ¢hose who say that the Son of God * * 
* was not beforc He was born,” for the Arian denial of his existence 
before His first birth seems most naturally to be there referred to, 
not His birth out of the Virgin Mary. 


5. As to the Apostles’ Creed, so-called, I judge that the Syrian 
Monophysites do not use it; for the following reasons : 


1. I have not found any notice of its existence among them in 
any author. 


2. It is a peculiarly Western Creed, and is not found among the 
Greeks, or among the Nestorians, except among those united to 
Rome, whence they have derived it. See what is said elsewhere on 
the Greeks and the Nestorians. 


3. The Abyssinians, who are co-religionists of the Syrian 
Monophysites, do not use it, and a century or two ago, did not even 
know of it; and the Armenians, who are also their co-religionists, do 
not use it. See what is said elsewhere on the Abysoinians and 
the Armenians. 


HEM 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 85 


en ΄΄ὉὦὖᾧἝΓὮἝἜἝἪἝἷ“ἝἽἝἽἝἃἷἿἷἿἷἽἷἽἝἵ}5ὕ.,΄΄ῬῬῬΘῬθἝῬ΄᾿΄ρῆ1ππ  (--ς- .1;ΓΓ ΡῸΡᾷΡ τ τσ τ ρ  ρ ρ σροσοσοσοροοἙσπσἙσΠσΠ-““Ξ -““πὉ 


DIVISION II. 


AS TO THE RECEPTION OF THE SIX ECUMENICAL SYNODS IN THE 
WESTERN COMMUNIONS, AND AS TO THE USE OF 
THEIR TWO CREEDS THERE. 


SECTION 6. 
SUBSECTION I.—ECUMENICAL SYMBOLS. 


I. 


THE SYMBOL OF THE 318 HOLY FATHERS OF NICAEA. 


A Latin Church priest, Titus Joslyn, formerly of Montclair, 
N. J., informed me that his church does not use the symbol of the 
318 in any of its services. 


2: 
THE CONSTANTINOPOLITAN. 
The Latin Church uses this with the following differences : 


Art. 2. The Roman Church has added. perhaps from the Creed 
of Nicaea, the words ‘‘ God out of God,’’? which the Ecumenical Coun- 
cil of Constantinople, A. D. 381 could have retained had they chosen, 
but which it pleased them to omit; and indeed this clause is not neces- 
sary because it is contained in the stronger clause ‘‘ very God out of 
very God,’ which is in the Symbol of the 150. 


Art. 3. The Roman translates ‘“‘of the Holy Ghost and (zat) 
Mary the Virgin,’ by the words: “ὃν the Holy Ghost out of 
Mary the Virgin.” 


Art. 7. The Roman, after ‘‘ who proceedeth out of the Father,’’ 
adds ‘‘ and the Son.’ 


This occurs in the Order of the Mass. A latin Priest informs 
me that it is the only Creed which is used in the Mass. 


As to the use of this Symbol see Swainson’s article ‘‘ Cveeds’’ in 
Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, and his 
article ‘‘ Creed’ in Smithand Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography. 


86 Chapter 71. 


SUB-SECTION II. 
LOCAL, THAT IS WESTERN SYMBOLS. 
τὰ 
THE SO-CALLED APOSTLES. 

This is a Creed of the local Roman and of Western Churches. It 
is properly THE ROMAN CREED. In the form now used it is more 
full and complete than it was about A. D. 390 when Rufinus first 
mentioned it. It is the present baptismal Creed of the Roman Com- 
munion proper. A priest of the Latin Communion, Titus Joslyn, in- 
formed me that it is never used at the Eucharist, but occurs often in 
the Breviary Offices. For some time in the Middle Ages the Church 
of Rome, and some other parts of the Western Church used at Bap- 
tism the Creed ofthe Second Ecumenical Council, without the addition of 
“‘ God out of God’’ and of ‘‘ and the Son’? (see Dr. Swainson’s article 
‘“ Cyeed,”’ section 17, right hand column, page 492, vol. 1., of Smith 
and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities ; and the refer- 
ence to Assemani’s Codex Liturgicus there, and Heurtley’s Harmo- 
nia Symbolica, pages 157-161. It isa great pity thatit did not be- 
come the Universal Baptismal Creed of the West as it is of the East, 
for it confesses clearly and definitely the whole Trinity, whereas the 
local Creed of the Apostolic See of Rome does not, but may be and 
often is used by Anti-Trinitarians. "Those enemies of Christ prefer it 
to the two Ecumenical Creeds. A tendency to substitute it for them 
is a mark of ignorance and folly, and often, among Protestants at least, 
of doctrinal error, that is of an Anti-Christian and Anti-Trinitarian 
δίας, and of heretical disregard for the voice of that Universal Church 
which Christ has commanded us to hear under pain of being deemed 
‘casa heathen man and a publican,’’ (Matt. 18, 17), and of conse- 
quent doctrinal, disciplinary and ritual anarchy. 

Probably the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council would 
loug since’ have displaced it and been substituted for it in all the 
West, in the Baptismal Offices, as it has been substituted for local 
Eastern Creeds in the East, and that long since, were it not for the 
ignorance among us in the Middle Ages, which received the fable 
that the Apostles had made the so-called Apostles’ Creed. The 
Western Creed might, however, be retained for occasional use, but 
not on Baptismal, Eucharistic, Ordination, or other Sacramental 
Occasions. 


ccount of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 87 


τς 
THE SO-CALLED ATHANASIAN. 


This, now admitted not to be a work of Athanasius (64), is used 
in the Latin Church. A priest of the Latin Church, Titus Joslyn, 
informed me that it occurs in the Breviary Offices, but is never used 
at the Eucharist. 


Schaff, in his Cyreeds of Christendom, volume i. page 40, states 
that ‘‘during the Middle Ages it was almost daily used in the 
morning devotions.’’ He quotes in proof J. Bona, De divina 
Psalmodia, c. 16, sec. 18, p. 863, (as quoted by Kollner, Symdolk, I, 
85): [I translate Bona’s Latin]: 


‘“That Creed [the Athanasian] was formerly chanted daily, as 
Honorius testifies, but mow is recited on Lord’s Days in a full 
attendance of the whole congregation, that the Confession of the 
holy faith may be celebrated more publicly on that day.’’ See 
further as to its use in the Middle Ages in the West in Dr. Swain- 
son’s article ‘‘ Cveed,’’ section 24, page 493, volume i., of Smith aud 
Cheetham’s Dectionary of Christian Antiquities. 


1πτ- 
CREED OF POPE PIUS IV. 


This is thus described: ‘‘A succinct and explicit summary of the 
doctrine contained in the Canons of the Conncil of Trent, is expressed 
in the Creed which was published by Pius IV., in 1564, in the form 
of a bull, and usually bears his name. It is received throughout 
the whole Roman Catholic Church: every person who is admitted 
into the Roman Catholic Church, publicly reads and professes his 
assent to 1{ (65). <A priest of the Latin Church, Titus Joslyn, 
informed me that it is never used at the Eucharist or Baptism. Any- 
one who signs or in any way approves its creature-worship and 
image-worship and relic-worship and its other errors against the Six 
Ecumenical Councils, commits a most fearful sin, and for such a 
crime, in the early centuries, if he had been validly baptized, he 
would have been put to a long penance before being received to 
communion in any Orthodox Church; for he has not only apostatized 


(64). See Waterland’s Work on this Creed. 
(65). Hook’s Church Dictionary under “ Creed of Pope Pius 717. 


88 Chapter 71. 


to idolatry, but has actually sworn to maintain it, and other 
Ecumenically condemned errors. 


DIVISION III. 
THE SIX ECUMENICAL SYNODS. 


The Latin Church professes to receive the Six Ecumenical 
Synods, and the Synod of Νίοβεα A. D. 787, which established 
image-worship, as well as others held since, the last being that of 
the Vatican, A.D. 1870. But the Ecumenical Canons, that is those 
of the first four, are much disregarded and violated, and the high 
relative importance and true position of the Norms of Definition put 
forth by the four last of the Six Ecumenical Synods, are too much 
lost sight of. Since the Roman Church, by her anti-canonical arro- 
gance, made the separation between the West and the East, she has 
swerved more and more from the ancient Catholic bases in do¢trine, 
discipline and rite, in the Six Councils and in the Universal Historic 
Tradition, especially on Baptism, until now the Greeks refuse to 
regard it as the same Church it was, or indeed to recognize it as 
a part of the Church at all: though it should be said in justice 
to all, that the Greeks also have sadly erred; for though they 
retain the Creed of the Second Synod without addition or diminution, 
and though they still retain some primitive rites once Universal, 
such for instance as the trine immersion in baptism and infant- 
Eucharistizing, they have swerved from much in the decisions and 
canons of the Six Ecumenical Synods, and in idolatry and creature- 
worship, are in some respects full as bad as Rome. 


Nevertheless, both the Greeks and the Latins profess great 
respect for the Six Synods, even though in some things they do not 
obey them; the Greeks professing to receive all their utterances; and 
the Latins, all of them except some of their Canons, though since 
the proclamation of Papal Infallibility, by Pius IX., in 1870, they 
at times have practically denied the action of the Sixth Ecumenical 
Councils in condemning Pope Honorius asa heretic, and gone farther 
into apostasy than ever. Indeed, Francis Patrick Kenrick, in his 
Theologia Dogmatica, volume 1., (1839), page 282, said that it is 
lawful to think that the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod 
erred in their judgment on Honorius. Kenrick was the Romish 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 89 


coadjutor Bishop of Philadelphia, Pa., at that time, and died Arch- 
bishop of Baltimore in A. D. 1863. But his assertion leads to nulli- 
fying much that the Six Councils have said, and indeed may afford 
occasion to some to call in question all or nearly all their decrees. 
For if they were liable to err as to facts, that is as to their premzzses, 
they were certainly liable to err as to their conclusions from those 
premises. And so they may have erred as to that Historic Tradition 
of Faith on the Scriptures and on their Interpretation, on the basis 
ot which they condemned Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Euty- 
ches, as well as Pope Honorius. We must admit then that no truly 
Ecumenical Council has erred asto any fact. When it can be proved 
that any Synod has so erred, that fact proves that it was fallible and 
so not Ecumenical. For instance the Council of Niczea A. D. 787, 
took some spurious matter as the basis of its decision that image- 
worship and creature-invocation had always been a part of the faith 
from the beginning, and ignored or rejected genuine passages of 
Christian writers from the beginning, which proved both the non-use 
and non-worship of images painted and images graven, and the non- 
invocation of creatures; and they ignored or rejected those decisions 
of the Third Ecumenical Synod and of others after it which condemn 
all velative-service and all service to created persons and to mere 
things; and so that conyenticle of A. D. 787 is proven to be not 
Ecumenical. 


The discipline contained in the False Decretals of Isidore has. 
whelmed, for the present at least, some of the Ecumenical Canons. 
Still the Norms of Definition on the Ecuinenical Symbol are for the 
present in the background, for the masses of the Latin clergy know 
but little of them in their true sense and meaning and application to 
present errors. 


The worship of the Sacred Heart of Jesus which is Nestorianism 
and Man-Worship of the most flagrant character, is quote common 
among them, and is defended by them on Nestorius’ plea quoted in 
Act 1 of Ephesus as one basis for his deposition, that it is done ve/a- 
tively to the Logos, an excuse which is simply that of Relative-Wor- 
ship on which the heathen has always based his worship of his 
images painted, graven, and relics of Boodha, etc., and of altars, etc. 
But in such matters the ignorance of the bulk of Latin theologians is 
something wonderful. Let us hope that in time they will confess 


90 Chapter 71. 


and forsake all relative-worship and so oey Ephesus. The Nes- 
torians worship of Christ’s humanity is anathematized in the Eighth 
of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s XII. Chapters, and in Anathema IX. 
of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Oh, that we may soon have a true 
Seventh Ecumenical Synod to enforce the first Six, to do away with 
all errors, and to put an Orthodox Patriarch into the Western 
See of Peter. We are coming to it. And we need also to be 
freed from thecontrol of the State, which often no longer desires to sup- 
portthe Churchand to help it, but tointerfere with its temporalities, and 
to take them out of the hands of Bishops where Canon X XVI. of the 
Fourth Ecumenical Synod puts them, and to put them into the hands 
of mere laics, or even, in some cases, non-laics, to worry the Bishops 
and clergy and to tyrannize over them and keep them from preaching 
the full truth of God, and so to destroy Christianity so much as 
they can. 


The proper course for the West to pursue is : 


1. To receive and enforce, everywhere and always, all the doc- 
trine, discipline, rite and custom of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 


2. On points on which the Six Synods do not speak, 20 restore all 
the Universal historic tradition in doctrine, discipline and rite of the 
Primitive Church, West and East, such for instance (A) as ¢he trine 
immersion in Laptism, which is the only mode mentioned in the 
Gelasian Sacramentary and the Gregorian (66), and is always com- 
manded in them (67), which, Pope Pelagius and Chrysostom teach, is 
required by the command of Christ Himself in Matt. 28, 19 (68), and 
which, as all admit, was the practice of the whole Church during all 
the early centuries (69), and which the Greeks of the Four Eastern 
Patriarchates make essential to valid baptism still (70), and for the 


(66). See the rubrics quoted in Chrystal’s History of the Modes of Christian 
Baptism, page 109. 

(67). Ibid., and pages 134-137. 

(68). Id., pages 80 and 76. Popes Leo I. and Vigilius also favor the thrice- 
dipping. See id., pages 80 and 99. Alcuin, as we expect to show elsewhere on 
Baptism, proves that the alleged letter of Pope Gregory I. to Leander of Seville, 
which favors the one dip for Spain, is spurious. 

(69). See Chrystal’s History of Modes of Baptism, passim. 

(70). See the Πηδάλιον, Athens edition of A. Ὁ. 1841, page 37, end of note in 
‘col. 1, and Palmer’s Dissertations on the Orthodox Communion, pages 199-204. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 91 


lack of which they reject now as they long have all Latin and all 
Western Baptisms and Orders (71). 


(B). The confirmation, and (ΕἾ, the Eucharistizing of Infants 
which was in the Church from the first, which St. Cyprian 
Bishop of Carthage, who died a martyr for Christ, A. D. 258, only 
about 158 years after the Apostle John’s death, shows in one of his 
Treatises (72) was the established custom of the Church in his time ; 
and he implies in another place that no. one can be saved without 
it (73); which Innocent I., Bishop of Rome, A. D. 402-417 and his 
contemporary, Augustine, of Hippo, deemed necessary to every in- 
fant’s salvation ; which remained, according to Maldonat, the custom 
of the Roman Church for the first six hundred years (74), and ac- 
cording to Cardinal Bona till the twelfth century (75); which was the 
custom of the whole Church for at least the first eight hundred years 
of the Christian era (76), and which the Greeks have always retained 
and still retain, and which they justly reproach the Latins and other 
Westerns for laying aside. 


(D). Zhe non-use in Churches and in places of worship of images 
and crosses in accordance with the sentiments of the primitive Roman 
writer, Minucius Felix of the Third Century, who testifies in his 
Octavius that the Christians of his time used neither. These 
Universal Rites and Customs, and all other rites and customs com- 
mon in the early centuries from the beginning to the whole Church 
East and West, must be restored before there can be a godly union. 
They can stand the test of Vincent of Lerins’ dictum, as held ‘‘ A/- 
ways, every where and by αἰ. Among such Universal customs is 
the use everywhere of the language of each people always in their 
services and worship, that it may be intelligent and heartfelt, and so 
pleasing to God and saving and edifying. ; 


(71). Ibid. | 

(72). Cyprian’s Treatise on the Lapsed, (written A. D. 251), section 16,(pages 
168-170 of the Oxford Translation). 

(73). Cyprian’s Scripture Testimonies Against the Jews, book i, section 22; 
(pages 35, 36 of the Oxford Translation). 


(74). Bingham’s Antigutties of the Christian Church, book xv., chapter 4, 
section 7. Compare Id., book xii., chapter 1, section 3. 

(75). Ibid. 

(76). Ibid. 


92 Chapter IT. 


I have specified only a few important matters which need reform 
and the restoration of what was in the beginning, but scholars may 
learn the rest from the pages of antiquity ; Bingham states many of 
them in his Antiquities. 


3. In mere local customs, such, for instance, as the unveiled chancel 
or sacristy, and of kneeling on days when it is not prohibited by 
Canon XX. of the First Ecumenical Council, they should always pre- 
fer what has always been Western from the beginning: for it is not 
wise to scandalize the people and even the learned by laying aside 
customs which were always European, and were in use in the prim- 
itive Western Church among men who are now deemed saints by all 
East and West, and by introducing instead of them, customs which 
are purely Asiatic and local. ‘To attempt such a substitution in such 
trifles would at once excite prejudice and opposition against even 
right changes of present evil customs, and might lead to confounding 
in the common mind all changes as evil and unwise, and would in- 
sure the defeat of needed reforms. Besides no such displacement in 
such trifles of what is Asiatic for what is European will ever succeed 
among Europeans or their descendants in the Americas or in Austra- 
lia or elsewhere in their realms. 


I would add in conclusion that as, since the Vatican Council of 
A. D. 1870, all hope of a reform in Rome and the restoration by her 
of the Ecumenical Decisions of the Six Synods, and of all the primi- 
tive doctrine, discipline, rite and custom has vanished forever, one 
practical things remains ; and that is the appointment of a valid suc- 
cessor to Leo XIII. at once, and a valid succession in Sees now sub- 
ject to him where their occupants refuse to reform and restore. ‘That 
successor and that succession must be free from the sins of image- 
worship and invoking creatures; must hold to the Six Councils alone 
as Ecumenical and to all Universal do¢trine, discipline, rite and cus- 
tom which has been from the beginning, but should not scandalize 
the people by changing what has been Western in trifling matters 
from the first. It is altogether desirable and would be justly de- 
manded by the Greeks that he and they be thrice immersed like the 
Roman bishops Gelasius, Leo I. and Pelagius, and be ordained by 
thrice immersed men; and Westerns would prefer, if it can be, by 
bishops subject to St. Peter’s See of Antioch, as it is termed in the 
Fourth Ecumenical Council, or by some other successors of Peter, that 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 93 


so the Petrine succession may be preserved. But as, owing to the 
present idolatry of the Greeks, that can not be expected, then the next 
best valid thing to reconstruct the Roman episcopate should be done, 
and done at once to save the hundreds of millions who are dying un- 
der its sway in idolatry and in creature-worship, and so, according to 
the New Testament and the Six Councils, and the English Homilies, 
without hope. 


But those who restore the Roman Baptism and Orders should 
adept as Universal Church Law not only the Decrees of the Six 
Ecumenical Councils, but also for each nation and for its jurisdiction 
those Carthaginian documents and canons against Rome’s claim to 
Appellate Jurisdiction in Africa, which were adopted by the Trullan 
Synod of A. D. 691, and should confine any and all claim of Appel- 
late Jurisdiction by Rome to Italy: while at the same time they 
should leave the Bishop of Rome his ancient primacy, as First among 
his equals (Primus inter pares), and such powers as he possessed in 
the primitive ages, and such as he possesses according to the 
Decisions of the Six Synods’ and no more. In cases of appeal on 
emergent matters, he, not alone, but with the Patriarchs and 
Metropolitans of the Christian world, East and West, could settle 
them, as of yore, subject to the approval of the Episcopate of the 
West and of the East, as of yore. ‘This would in time reconcile all in 
the West, and in the East who are sticklers for his Avzmacy,; and at 
the same time would do away his sapremacy, which has done so much 
evil in doctrine, discipline and rite, and is still doing, and would 
make the Church one and orthodox. Of course the bishop of Rome 
would have only one vote on any matter in such a gathering of 
delegates from all the national Churches and provinces of the Chris- 
tian world, and would have only such a position among his fellow- 
bishops as the apostle Peter had among his fellow-apostles. Such a 
body, if free from lay interference and sound, would speedily conquer 
the world for Christ and his Church. It is difficult as yet to see how 
such union and blessing may be brought about, but let all, East and 
West, exert themselves that it may be, and it will be. For Christ 
prayed that His disciples may be one, (John xvii., 11, 21, 22, 
23). For the greed and ignorance of an image-worshiping and 
creature-invoking bishop of Rome, a heretic whose errors are 
anathematized by the Six Ecumenical Councils, have led astray, 


94 Chapter IT. 


scattered, and torn Christ’s flock. Is it not high time to substitute 
for his invalid and idolatrous succession one that is valid and anti- 
idolatrous? It can readily be done if all who desire it, West and 
East, and their governments, unite to secure it. 


An Ecumenical Council can judge any Pope or Patriarch. ‘The 
Sixth Ecumenical Council resisted and judged and condemned the 
heresy of Leo’s predecessor, Honorius; and it anathematized him; 
and a true Seventh Synod can do the same with his successor. In 
the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts xv., it is the whole Apostolate’ 
which acts and decides, not Peter alone. So let a valid and sound 
successor to him be chosen for Rome, and let him and the sound 
Apostolate of the Christian world redress our evils and correct 
all errors. Sooner or later it will be done in a Seventh Ecumenical 
Council of the West and the East, but how, we see not as yet. For 
the Episcopate of the Greek Church are involved in creature-invoca- 
tion, and other acts of worship of animate creatures; and of painted 
images and of relics, and other inanimate things, much as the Roman 
Episcopate is; and without the East there can be no Ecumenical 
Council. Till then let all guard and preserve all of the primitive and 
of the Six Councils which they retain, and restore every thing in 
them as soon as possible, and all primitive doctrine, discipline and 
rite as soon as possible. Idolatry, as the Old Testament teaches, 
was the cause of God’s splitting the Israelitish Church, and it was 
never reunited till they reformed and restored. So idolatry, as an 
English Homily Against Peril of Idolatry teaches, was the cause of 
the division of Christendom into East and West, and it never will be 
healed till they both reform and restore. God grant therefore a 
speedy Reformation and Restoration everywhere. 


On the other hand, a mere /oca/ Council of the West has judged 
and deposed Popes of Rome for error in doctrine or in life; but the 
Episcopate of the Roman obedience are now, so to speak, bound so 
fast hand and foot and so involved in all the errors of Rome that, 
seemingly, no help can be expected from them. ‘Their predecessors 
were more independent when, in 1409, at the Council of Pisa, they 
deposed two rival Popes, Gregory XII. and Benedi&t XIII., as 
““notortous heretics,’ (77), and cut them off from the Church, and 


(77). Treat’s Catholic Faith, pages 560-561. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 95 


elected Alexander V. to be bishop of Rome, (78). They were more 
independent when the Council of Constance in A. D. 1414, decreed 
that a General Council is superior to a Pope, (79), deposed the rival 
Popes, John XXIII. and Benedict XIII.; John XXIII. for heresy, 
(80), and led Gregory XII. to abdicate, and elected Martin V. to be 
Pope (81). John XXIII. submitted. 


The Council of Basil, which met A. D. 1431, decreed that a 
general Council is superior to a Pope of Rome, and deposed Pope 
Eugenius IV. and elected Felix V. in his place and see (82). 


There shonld be an anti-creature-serving and Orthodox Bishop 
of Rome, and an Orthodox Bishop in every See, West and East. 


At the same time all that is good in Rome should be jealously 
maintained, for instance, its claim for the freedom of the episcopate 
and the Church everywhere from subjection to lay power, its claim 
that education should be Christian, and that every Christian State 
should help the Church, not worry and persecute it and put laics 
over its temporalities to enslave its clergy, and that the Christian 
faith is the only true and saving one which cannot compromise with 
error, and its abhorrence of Freemasonry and of all secret societies 
and the false Anti-Christian Liberalism of our time. 


SECTION 7. 
IN THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION. 
SUBSECTION I.—ECUMENICAL SYMBOLS. 


1. 
THE SYMBOL OF THE 318 HOLY FATHERS OF NICAEA. 

This is not in use in any part of this communion. Would it not 
be well for the bishops to order it to be said at least four or perhaps 
twelve times a year, in every Church, as a guard against denial of 
the Divinity of the Eternal Logos, and to let the people who now 
never hear it, know exactly what the Universal Church has said? 


(78). Ibid. Compare Murdock’s Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., vol. ii., page 425. 

(79). Treat’s Catholic Faith, pages 561-562, and Murdock’s Moshcim’s Eccl. 
FHTist., vol. ii., p. 426, note viii. 

(80). Littledales’s Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome, 
page 161. Murdock’s Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., vol. ii., page 426 and 427. 

(81). Ibid. 

(82). Ibid. 


96 Chapter 77. 


2. 
THE SYMBOL OF THE I50 HOLY FATHERS OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 


The symbol of the 150 is in use in this whole communion, 
including the English, Irish, Welsh, Scotch, Colonial and American 
branches. It has the same peculiarities as the Latin translation 
above, and one other in addition, namely: it omits in Article 9 the 
word ‘‘ holy’? before ‘‘Catholicand Apostolic Church.’’ "This additional 
blunder arose probably from a transcriber’s or printer’s error, and 
from ignorance or carelessness regarding the original. It must be 
used in the fw/7 Eucharistic service, except in the presbyter-and-lay- 
ruled American branch, where, till 1889, it might be always omitted, 
both in the Eucharist and everywhere else also. At the General 
Convention of that year, after much discussion, it was ordered that 
it be said five times in the year, namely, on Christmas-Day, Easter- 
Day, Ascension-Day, Whit-Sunday, and Trinity-Sunday. It may 
still be omitted every Lord’s day in the whole year except three or 
four, and on every week day except one or two! Rather a slim 
allowance of Orthodoxy, that! ΤῸ make it worse, one of the Anti- 
Christian clergy of that Communion, who has preached Arianism, if 
he be vightly reported in the daily press, replied to the action of the 
Convention, by saying in effect, in the public press: You may force 
that Creed on us, but we will nevertheless take it in our own sense. 
And his bishop has no sufficient power to resent his infidelity and 
depose him! It should have been done at once, and then, judging 
the man from his press utterances, he would have found his proper 
place in some Anti-Christian, that is Anti-Trinitarian βού. Bob 
Ingersoll justly taunted him with inconsistency in staying in the 
Episcopal Church, and implied that his motive in so doing is money, 
and that he is therefore dishonest. Alas! that such a man should, 
after his empty-headed and blatant professions of unbelief, be allowed 
for one moment to stay in any communion calling itself Christian, 
to corrupt others. His utterances against Christ’s Divinity are 
anathematized by the Creed of Niccea, but alas! that Creed is not 
enforced in that Communion. 


Yet it is approved in its Article VIII., both in the English and in 
the American branch. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 97 


SUBSECTION II.—LOCAL CREEDS. 


THE ROMAN AND WESTERN CREED, CALLED THE APOSTLES’, IN 
THE EIGHTH CENTURY FORM. 


2: 
The Highth of the 39 Articles mentions it as that which ἐς com- 
monly called the Apostles’ Creed.’’? ‘This is the baptismal Creed of this 
Communion, and is used in the daily Morning Prayer and Evening 
Prayer. It is approved in its Article VIII. In Baptism and in 
‘Communion and Confirmation, and in all Sacramental Rites, the 
‘Creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod should be used instead. 


4. 
THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 

This must be used at ‘‘ Morning Prayer,’’ except in the American 
Protestant Episcopal Communion, on certain days, specified in the 
English Book of Common Prayer. It is not in the American Book 
of Common Prayer. Even in the English Church it is never used 
in the Baptismal or Eucharistic Offices. It is formally approved in 
Article VIII. of the Church of England. ‘That allusion to it is 
wholly omitted in Article VIII. in the American Prayer Book. 
Purged of what may de taken in its Section 23, to teach the Double 
Procession, it might be used asa hymn on the days on which the 
English Church uses it, but it cannot be made a test of Communion, 
unless it be hereafter approved by a Seventh Ecumenical Synod. 
And it is not clear as yet what that Synod will do on that matter. 


~ 


SUBSECTION III. 


THE RECEPTION OF THE SIX ECUMENICAL COUNCILS AND THEIR 
NORMS OF DEFINITION. 

Though the Anglican Church has produced great and sound 
scholars, and nearly all the learned works of English Theology, nev- 
ertheless, among the bulk of both the clergy and people there is but 
little knowledge of any of the enactments in doctrine and dicipline 
and rite of the Six Great Synods, except the Symbol of the 318 and 
that of the 150, and still less of the high position and inexorable 
authority given them by the Universal Church. Practices and even 
doctrines hostile to these enactments are maintained almost without 
rebuke Almost no account is made of the Canons and Norms of 
Definition. Some respect is justly entertained for the writings of the 


98 Chapter IT. 


early Orthodox Fathers, but strangely enough, so gross is the ignor- 
ance, that almost none is entertained for the Ecumenical Synods, the 
only places where the Universal Church has ever spoken. Indeed, 
the author remembers to have heard a prominent professor of the 
High Church School in a High Church Seminary speak of the 
Canons as not necessarily binding. And on another occasion, when 
the author was conversing with a Bishop usually reckoned as a High 
Churchman, the author of more tian one merely popular work, but 
whose name from motives of delicacy I do not give, that prelate in- 
formed him that he always carried the 4é7s of the Ecumenical Synods 
bound up with his Greek Testament, and at the back of it. This 
remark is painfully amusing, for the Acts of Chalcedon alone are a 
large volume, and it would certainly be a goodly sized Greek ‘Testa- 
ment which could contain only them. The poor man meant the 
Canons. He did not seem to know the difference between them and 
the Acts. And the author has since heard him lay down the propo- 
sition in a gathering of his brethren, that the Canons may be dis- 
pensed with or are variable. He meant by merely /oca/ authority. 


The Ecumenical Canons indeed are alterable, but only by an 
Ecumenical Synod. Otherwise anarchy is the inevitable result. For 
if the decree of an Orthordox Ecumenical Synod can be set aside by 
one province it can be by another, and so it will finally be binding 
on nobody. This is practically to deny the binding authority of the 
voice of the Universal Church, and to reduce the decisions to mere 
advice. But that isnot to ‘‘ hear the Church;’’ Matt. xviii., 17, and 
it is therefore to set at naught the words of Christ himself, who has 
said: ‘‘/f he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an 
heathen man,and a publican,’’ Matt. xviii., 17. It was sad to hear 
a professed bishop derogating from that which it was duty to defend, 
and undervaluing the decisions of the Church, made by the aid of 
the Holy Spirit, whom the assembled Fathers prayed to, to help 
them in their deliberations, and whom Christ promised the Apostles 
and their successors to the end of the world; and which, so far as 
they were recetved by West and East, some ancient Fathers did not 
hesitate to deem as zzspived in such a sense as to be zfallible at least, 
because enacted by the aid of Him who has promised to be with 
“‘two or three’’ who meet together in His name, and whose presence 
may, therefore, a fortiori be expected in a Synod, not of ‘‘one or 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 99 


two,’’ but of many; not of private individuals, but of the bishops of 
the Universal Church, gathered not regarding private and minor 
interests, but the interests and faith and discipline of the Universal 
Church of God. 

Moreover, this prelate did not seem to remember that much of 
the fazih and discipline of the Church is in the Canons, so that the 
man who makes little of them derogates from both, and is, so far, an 
enemy of Christ. 


It isa pity that men holding high positions, instead of expos- 
ing abuses and evils, and so doing what they can to amend them, 
too often bolster them up, and so treasure up ‘‘ wrath unto’’ them- 
selves “against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous 
judgment of God,’’ Rom. ii., 5. 


If one-half of the labor and time spent in excusing and cloaking 
faults had been spent in correcting them, progress in everything 
good would have been vastly greater. Wrong will not be redressed 
until it is pointed out, and the bishops and pastors of Christ’s flock 
should be foremost in this good work. 


Now, the lower clergy and the laity know so little of the 
authority and valueand necessity of the enactments of the Six World- 
Synods, that, in their ignorance or utter indifference to them, they 
often violate them in matters of Faith and Rite and Discipline. 
For instance, they often elect men to the episcopate who are diga- 
mists or suffer them to exercise episcopal functions like ordination, 
though the general understanding of the ‘‘ove wefe,’’ of I. Timothy, 
iii, 2 and 12, and of Titus i., 6, in the whole Church from the 
beginning, as is ably shown on page 420, and after, of the English 
translation of a volume of Tertullian in the Oxford Library of the 
fathers, forbids any such prelate to perform any clerical function, 
and though there can be no certainty that any ordination or confirm- 
ation performed by him is valid. Anda large part of the discipline 
of the Ecumenical Canons, is whelmed in wreck and ruin throughout 
this whole important communion, but more, I think, in the United 
States than anywhere else. 

Probably in some respects the Anglican Church is the worst 
governed in the world. Indeed, in the United States there is much 
more presbyterial and lay power in it than there is of Episcopal. A 


100 Chapter 71. 


bishop in the American branch of it, in a conversation with me, spoke 
of it in effect as a Congregationalism modified by a little Episcopacy. 


I once said to one of its most learned and most estimable pre- 
lates, Bishop Whittingham, of Maryland, in effect something as 
follows : 


Bishop, why do you endure the control of Conventions, for the 
most part composed of poorly read clergy and of laymen unlearned 
in theology, instead of breaking them up and going back to the rule 
by bishops alone, which is authoritatively commanded in the Canons 
of the First Four Ecumenical Synods? Why do you suffer episcopal 
prerogatives to be snatched out of your hands and divided up among 
unlearned clergy and still more unlearned laics? Why do you not 
take the reins into your own hands, where they belong? 


He replied, in effect, that the tendencies of our country are so 
intensely political, even in Church matters, that the worldly theories 
of the secu/ar government are run into the Church; and he added in 
effect: If we should attempt to take the reins into our own hands 
we should find them cut and slashed in all directions; at the same 
time in his quick, nervous way, imitating the act of a man cutting 
the reins. 


2 I respected and loved the man, for he had much more of self- 
sacrifice than most married prelates, and vastly more learning; but I 
believe that if the Episcopate of any National or Colonial Church in 
the Anglican Communion were single, learned, and thoroughly 
Orthodox, free that is from Romish idolatry and from infidel error, 
and self-sacrificing and prudent, and at the same time uncompromis- 
ing, they could, after a long struggle and much suffering, restore all 
the doctrine, discipline, rite and custom of the Six Ecumenical 
Councils, and of the Ante-Nicene Church, and that the growth of 
that part of that communion would then be immense. It would 
result in a thorough Restoration of all that fell into desuetude during 
the period of idolatry, and so would crown the work of the Reforma- 
tion in the Sixteenth Century as the Restoration of all the doctrine, 
discipline, rite and custom of the Israelitish Church at Jerusalem in 
the times of Ezra and Nehemiah and Jeshua and Zorobabel, crowned 
and perfected the Reformation that had been accomplished in Babylon 
Jong before. For a perfect Reformation in Religion necessarily 


Account of the Six Ecuntenical Councils. 101 


includes a perfect Restoration of all the orignal doctrine, discipline, 
rite and custom. 


And let it be well rememembered that the Formularies of the An- 
glican Church favor the Six Councils, though at the Reformation 
they were not so well known as they are now. For the Thirty-fifth 
Article approves the Homilies; and the Homilies speak with respect 
of the Six Synods. 


For, 1, they reckon ‘‘ ¢he four first General Councils’? as of “‘ the 
primitive Church,’’ and appeal to a canon of Chalcedon, as one of the 
four, as authority on the subject of fasting. ‘The following, from the 
Second Book, the First Part of the Sermon of Fasting, are the words 
referred to: 


‘‘Rasting then, even by Christ's assent, is a withholding of 
meat, drink, and all natural food from the body, for the determined 
time of fasting, and that it was used in the primitive church, appear- 
eth most evidently by the Chalcedon Council, one of the four first Gen- 
eral Councils. ‘The fathers assembled there, to the number of six 
hundred and thirty, considering with themselves how acceptable a 
thing fasting is to God, when it is used according to His word; 
again, having before their eyes also the great abuses of the same 
crept into the Church at those days, through the negligence of them 
which should have taught the people the right use thereof, and by 
vain glosses devised of men; to reform the said abuses, and to restore 
this so good and godly a work to the true use thereof, decreed in that 
Council, that every person, as well in his private as public fast, 
should continue all the day without meat and drink, till after the 
evening prayer. And whosoever did eat or drink before the evening 
prayer was ended, should be accounted and reputed not to consider 
the purity of his fast. This canon teacheth so evidently how fasting 
was used in the primitive church, as by words it can not be more 
plainly expressed. 


‘‘Fasting then, by the decree of those six hundred and thirty 
fathers, grounding their determination in this matter upon the 
Sacred Scriptures, and long continued usage or practice, both of the 
prophets and other godly persons before the coming of Christ, and 
also of the Apostles and other devout men of the New Testament, is 
a withholding of meat, drink, and all natural food from the body, for 


102 Chapter 77. 


the determined time of fasting. Thus much is spoken hitherto to 
make plain unto you what fasting is.”’ 


Although this Canon is not found among the 30 of Chalcedon, 
this makes but little difference so far as the question of respect for 
the Council itself is concerned. This respect is quite marked in the 
passage quoted above. 


The other passage is in the Second Book, inthe Homily Against 
Peril of Idolatry, the Second Part, and mentions the Six Councils as 
‘allowed and received of all men.’’ ‘The words are as follows: 


‘The said Constantine, Bishop of Rome, caused the images of 
the ancient Fathers, which had been at those Stx Councils, which 
were allowed and recetved of all men, to be painted in the entry of 
St. Peter’s Church at Rome.’’ 


The Constantine here meant, according to Riddlein his Accle- 
stastical Chronology, page 180, became Pope of Rome, A. D. 708. 


It is undoubtedly true indeed that the English Reformers of 
blessed memory do decide in their Article XXI., against the infal- 
libility of what it terms General Councils, but we must understand 
them to refer to the idolatrous Conventicle of, Niczea, A. D. 787, and 
to the merely local non-Ecumenical Councils of the West after the 
split in the Church in the ninth century, which were misnamed 
General or Ecumenical. So must we understand similar language 
often in other Reformation Confessions on the topic of those so- 
called General Councils, 


The whole Anglican Communion is passing through one of the 
severest crisis of its long history of about 1700 or 1800 years; for 
within its own pale there is but one Orthodox and consistent party, 
small in numbers and weak in influence, whose principles are, 1, 
thorough obedience in all things, in do¢trine, discipline, rite and 
custom to the Six Ecumenical Councils; and where they have not 
svoken, to all the do¢trine. discipline, rite and custom of the Ante- 
Nicene Church. 


Those principles would, if logically carried out, lead them : 


(A). To use an exact English translation of the Creed of Niczea, 
and an exact English translation of that of the Second Ecumenical 
Synod; and so to avoid all additicns to either of them and all 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 103 


subtractions from either of them, and to have read in every congre- 
gation at least once every year all Definitions set forth by the Six 
Ecumenical Councils, all the Epistles of Definition approved by 
them; that is the two of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius, which 
were ratified by the Third Ecumenical Synod; Cyril’s Epistle to 
John of Antioch, and Leo of Rome’s to Flavian of Constantinople, 
which were approved by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and the 
Report of Agatho of Rome to the Emperor Constantine, and another 
Report, both of which are received in the Definition of the Sixth 
Synod; and all those Canons of the First Four Ecumenical Councils, 
which have been received by the whole Church, West and East, and 
all the local Canons which are made Ecumenical by Canon I. of the 
Fourth Council. 


(B). Where the Six Ecumenical Councils have not spoken, they 
should follow closely all the Unzversal doétrine, discipline, rite and 
custom which has come down from the first, and which was held 
always, everywhere and by all. 


(C). On merely local customs, which are purely Western, such 
for instance as the unveiled, open chancel, they should follow those 
local customs of the West, which like it, have come down there from 
the Apostles, for we are a Western race. 


These three principles would bind them to receive and enforce 
the following among other things, in addition to what is mentioned 
above as to the use of an exact translation of each of the two Ecu- 
menical Creeds, and the rehearsing once a year in every Church of 
all the Definitions, Normal Epistles and Canons of the Six Ecu- 
menical Synods. 

AS TO DOCTRINE, 


1. To incorporate all the Creeds, Definitions, Epistles of Defini- 
ion and Canons of the Six Ecumenical Councils, and of the local 
Councils approved in Canon I. of the Fourth Ecumenical Council 
into the Prayer Book of the Anglican Church. 


2. To enforce their enactments by deposing all clerics of any 
order who favor relative worship, by bowing, or in any other way, 
of crosses, painted images, graven images, relics, altars, communion 
tables, the Book of the Gospels, the Bible, or any other inanimate 
thing; and to enforce their enactments also against all who give any 


104 Chapter 77. 


act of religious service, be it invocation, bowing, kneeling, prostra- 
tion, incense, or any other to any animate creature, be it (a) to the 
humanity of Christ, contrary to the Eight Anathema of St Cyril of 
Alexandria’s XII., which were approved by the third World-Synod, 
and by the Three after it, and to the Ninth Anathema of the Fifth. 
Ecumenical Synod. 

And a fortiori (Ὁ) to any creature less tian Christ’s humanity, 
be it the Virgin Mary, any other saint, any martyr, any archangel, 
any angel, or any other creature. For surely any one who possesses. 
any reasoning power should see at once, that if the Six Ecumenical 
Councils have deposed all clerics and anathematized all laics who. 
worship the created humanity of Christ, by itself, much more have 
they by necessary implication all who worship any lesser creature; 
for all admit that Christ’s perfect and sinless ἀρότου is: ‘the: 
highest and best of all merely created things. 


Those definitions cover and forbid every case of worship to crea- 
᾿ tures animate or inanimate, and to all mere things, be they pictures,. 
graven images, relics, or anything else, but God. 


The invocation of angels is branded as ‘‘ Secret Jdolatry’’ in 
Canon XXXV. of Laodicea; and every one guilty of that sin is. 
anathematized, ‘‘because he hath left our Lord Jesus Christ and gone 
over to idolatry.’ ‘That Canon is made of Ecumenical authority by 
Canon I. of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod. By eguality of reasoning 
(pari ratione) it forbids all worship of any other creature, be it saint 
or martyr, or the Virgin Mary, or any archangel. For as the one is. 
“hidden idolatry,’’ so are the others, because all are creature-service. 
For prayer is an act of religious service, as God’s Word shows. 


Laics guilty of such sins are anathemized by the Six Councils. 
of the Christian World 


The first Commandment of the Mosaic Law, as Christ teaches, is 
to worship God alone (Mark xii., 29, 30). When the Israelites. 
obeyed that commandment they were most richly blessed; when they 
disobeyed it and invoked creatures, and relatively worshipped Jehovah 
through the images, that is, the calves, at Dan and Bethel, they were 
signally cursed. 

So when the English people at the time of the Reformation 
ceased to invoke creatures and to worship images and relics, though 
they were few, weak and despised, and ignorant and poor, God 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 105 


blessed them, gave them victory on field and flood, and has enabled 
them to people and govern the larger part of North America, 
Australia, New Zealand and many islands of the sea, and has given 
their former Queen, now Empress Victoria, dominion over tracts 
of the earth vastly greater than imperial Rome ever possessed, and 

over about one-fifth or one-sixth of the whole human race, aggregat- 
ing not far from three hundred millions of souls, whereas her 
creature-serving predecessor, Bloody Mary, lost Calais, the last pos- 
session of England in France, and ruled over only about four millions 
of people. 

When the King Charles I., married an idolatrous wife, in the 
seventeenth century, and some of the clergy veered towards the old 
creature-service again, God sent on them the Cromwellian Scourge 
which brought the King and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Laud,, 
to the block} disestablished the Church, beggared the clergy, and 
crushed, as far as it could, its worship, and it crushed it nearly every- 
where, for the churches were given to non-Episcopalians. 


And to-day, as a race, we are approaching similar disasters, for 
men are so ignorant of theology, or so perverse, as to invoke creatures, 
teach creature-service, and are not deposed. For instance, EK. B. 
Pusey, in his 4zventcon, Appleton’s New York edition of 1866, 
pages 100 and 175, sanctions the invocation of saints, and deceptively 
pares down the godly Anglican protest against that sin to make it 
near the Roman idolatry; and on page 194, of the same work, ap- 
proves the relative-worship of the crucifix, of Bibles and of altars, 
and bowing to a throne. 


Pusey, on the last named page, shows that the unbelieving and 
loose Arnold favored the same idolatry as to the crucifix. 


The same Pusey and John Keble corrupted the doctrine of the 
Eucharist, and started afresh the heresy of the Nestorian Theodoret 
of worshipping the Eucharist, and Keble wrote a hymn to the Virgin 
Mary, which I have actually seen in a collection of Anglican hymns, 
designed to be sung in church, and actually so sung. 


John Mason Neale professed to ‘‘adove’’ the Virgin Mary, aad 
Bishop Young, of Florida, told me that Neal introduced the 
medizval innovation of unleavened wafers in the Eucharist, and was 
so given to drink, the Bishop told me, that his wife had to go to an 
ale house or houses to ask them not to let him have it. 


106 Chapter 71. 


And Pusey, and Keble, and Newman, and their coadjutors have 
apologized for Roman idolatry, and tried to do away with much of 
the Reformation protest and guard against it, and to let in the waves 
of God’s ire against England and its Church again. 


Pusey indeed was suspended for a time, but was never forced to 
renounce his errors. And Neale was in bad odor among all sound 
men, but died in his nice nest in the receipt of an income from the 
Reformed, whose faith he betrayed. So did Pusey. So did John 
Keble. Not one of them was forced to renounce his errors and to 
confess his sins, nor deposed, nor excommnnicated from his national 
Church, as all creature-serving heretics were by the Six Ecumenical 
Councils. JI am aware that the bishops of the English Church tried, 
in their utterances, to check the tendency to idolatry and to creature- 
service in the Romanizing presbyter-led Oxford movement, and so far 
they are to be honored. But they are to be condemned ‘because they 
did not depose from their ministry and cut off from their communion 
all such idolatrizers. The result is that many of the less sound and 
less solidly learned clergy imitate them, because they were permitted 
to die in the Church; and soul-damning creature-worship is spread- 
ing, and the Anglican communion is losing its Reformation and 
primitive purity; the windows and walls and chancels are befouled 
with lying images, which provoke the jealous God to jealousy, 
(Psalm Ixxviii., 58; Ezek. viii., 3 to 18, inclusive; Exod. xx., 4 to 7). 
The holy table of the Anglican Eucharistic rubric has been largely 
abolished by unlearned and presumptuous men, who try to improve 
on Christ’s example, and the wrath of God is preparing against us as 
a people, and will surely come, unless we repent and restore the New 
Testament and primitive doctrine and customs, and purge out the 
unclean persons who corrupt the Church. The Corinthians are 
blamed by St. Paul because they were puffed up and had not rather 
mourned that a violator of a law of Christian morals had not been 
taken away from them (I. Cor., v., 2); but the Apostle delivered the 
transgressor to Satan by excommunicating him; and in his godly 
zeal and wisdom he did the same with Hymenaeus and Alexander (I. 
Cor., v., 3-6, and I. Tim.,i., 20), and so saved the Church by driving 
away errors which, if he had tolerated, would have been deemed free, 
and to be tolerated in the Church in all ages 


The bishops of the Syrian Church suffered Diodore of Tarsus and 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 107 


Theodore of Mopsuestia to go free and to die in the communion of 
the Church, and so multitudes of Syrians, deeming them Orthodox, 
and reading their writings, were led by them into that denial of the 
Incarnation and Man-Service which cropped outin the Syrian Church 
in one of its leaders, Nestorius, in those grievous errors not long 
after their deaths, which have plagued the Syrian race ever since, 
led them to favor those heretics, when their sins were condemned by 
Ephesus and by St. Cyril of Alexandria, and finally led them to 
forsake the Universal Church. 


So, though Augustine in one place grieves over the picture- 
worship of some, and though some bishops resisted superstition, yet 
the unfaithfulness on the part of other North African Bishops, be- 
cause they feared the superstitious people, as one of their Canons 
shows, left error free, and it brought the wrath of the Jealous God on 
the African Church, and finally utterly wiped it out by the Moham- 
medan sword and torch. Andif the English-speaking people do not 
repent and guard the faith of the Six Synods and the New Testa- 
ment and primitive practice, we shall suffer a similar fate; for the 
lack of zeal for the worship of God alone (Matt. iv., 10), and the de- 
generacy and unsoundness of a large part of the clergy are simply 
appalling. They must condemn formally all such corrupters as 
Pusey, and such as he, or the people will read their dangerous errors 
and be wrecked. 


I have spoken of those that are creature-invokers, and who favor 
image-worship, or altar-worship, by bowing to it, or worship of the 
Eucharist, though, while all may be classed as creature-servers, they 
differ among themselves more or less on some details, some using the 
Roman wafers in their Eucharists, others not; some holding seem- 
ingly to something like Transubstantiation, others rather to Consub- 
stantiation, etc. 


This distinct Romanizing and idolatrous and creature-invoking 
party is represented by a few bishops, some presbytersand deacons, 
and by quite a number of women, whose faith and practice have keen 
corrupted by such unworthy clerics. There are very few men in the 
sect, except such as are effeminate. When, some years ago, a num- 
ber of them made application to Rome for recognition on certain bases 
as to rite or custom not fully Latin, Rome rejected them till they be- 
come fully Latin and entirely submissive. 


108 Chapter II. 


But, on the other hand, there are men in the Anglican Com- 
munion who are Arians, or at least Anti-Trinitarians of some of the 
heretical schools. Such is, if we can believe the report of his ser- 
mons as printed in the daily press, R. Heber Newton, rector of All 
Souls, New York City. And he does not stand alone, but to my 
knowledge has many sympathizers and defenders, some of them in 
some of the richest livings. 


There is quite a number of clergy and laics who are so loose as to 
be classed as somewhat infidelizing, some more and some less, who, 
therefore, differ more or less from each other, as heretics are wont to 
do, some of whom are loose on the Trinity, the full Divinity of God 
the Word, the Atonement, and the everlasting punishment of the 
wicked, and who have very little respect for the Six Ecumenical 
Synods, or for Church Authority of any kind, and who do not hold 
to the Six Councils’ power and privileges of the Episcopate; but who: 
prefer presbyter or lay substitutes for such power, and for the Ecu- 
menical Canons. Some of them call themselves Broad Churchmen,,. 
but they are really simply /oose, and more or less heretical. 


Among them have been classed Bishop Colenso, Dean Stanley, 
Dr. Arnold, R. Heber Newton, and others, who, however, agree 
not among themselves. The only man of any theological scholar- 
ship among them was Dean Stanley. 


They sometimes unite with the Romanizing and idolatrous 
party against the Orthodox Six Councils’ Party, and contrary to the 
Second Part of the Homily Against Peril of Idolatry, some of them 
agree with the Romanizing Party in darkening their Churches and 
excluding the light of heaven by filling the windows with lying 
images of jealousy which provoke the Jealous God tojealousy. And 
Dean Stanley, if he be rightly represented, seemed to put the law- 
fulness of invoking Christ about on a par with the lawfulness of 
invoking a mere human being like the Virgin Mary, or some other 
Saint; which implies disbelief in Christ’s complete Divinity, and a 
belief in the lawfulness of giving an act of religious service to a 
creature contrary to Christ’s own law in Matthew iv., 10, “ Thou 
shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’’ 

Pusey, on page 194 of his Eiventcon, quotes Dr. Arnold as favor- 
ing an act of idolatry, such as kissing an image, and as pronouncing 
it “right and natural.’ Such spiritual whoredom is zatural to the 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 109 


erring human heart in the sense that fleshly whoredom is zat‘ura/l to 
the erring human heart and in the sense that all idolatry is natural 
to man’s astray nature; but it is not ‘‘xzéght,’’ for God proclaimed 
his curse against Israel for the sin of kissing images. For in Hosea 
Mails, o2,.2, 3, we.tead: 

‘“ When Ephraim spoke trembling, he exalted himself in Israel; 
but when he offended in Baal he died. And now they sin more and 
more, and have made them molten images of their silver, and idols 
according to their own understanding, all of it the work of the crafts- 
men; they say of them, 


‘‘Let the men that sacrifice kiss the calves. Therefore, they shall 
be as the morning cloud, and as the early dew that passeth away, as 
the cloud that is driven with the whirlwind out of the floor, and as 
the smoke out of the chimney.”’ 


Here the worship by kissing the images at Dan and Bethel was 
relative worship to Jehovah through those images. For when 
Jeroboam set them up and so made Israel to sin, he proposed them 
to the people, not as images of Baal or of any false God, but of that 
God who had brought them up out of Egypt (I. Kings xii., 28, etc.), 
that is, of course, of Jehovah, for they then believed that Jehovah 
and no other had brought them up out of the land of Egypt. And 
indeed they had worshiped the calf in the wilderness asa symbol of 
Jehovah, for Aaron told them ‘‘70-morrow ts a feast to Jehovah,”’ 
(Exodus xxxii., 5, and Nehemiah ix., 18); and they were keeping it 
when God become so angry with them for that sin that he was going 
_ to exterminate them, but for the intercession of Moses. 


And those who are guilty of fleshly whoredom and of that im- 
age worship, that is idolatry, which the Scriptures call whoredom, are 
alike, according to Rey. xxi., 8, to have their part in the lake which 
burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. 


Besides, there is a class self-styled Evangelical, who deny the 
Baptism ‘‘for the remission of sins,’’ in Acts ii., 38, and do away with 
due Episcopal authority. 


Now, all such heretics should, in accordance with the Six 
Ecumenical Synods, be deposed from any ministry claiming to be 
Orthodox, orif laics, excommunicated. But, alas! there is no order 
or settled doctrine or discipline inthe Anglican Communion. But it 


110 Chapter LI. 


must have them, or continue to be what it is to-day, an ecclesiastical 
wreck. 


But (3) the Anglicancommunion should revise its 39 Articles, 
and should avoid requiring as conditions of local, non-universal Com- 
munion mere private opinions of some of the Fathers which are not ratz- 
ted by any of the Six World-Councils, such, for instance, as the opin- 
ion that God the Word was born eternally out of the Father; for 
that mere private opinion can not bear Vincent of Lerins’ famous test 
of what is to be approved, that is, that it must have been held ‘‘ A/- 
ways, everywhere, and by all,’’ for the view of St. Justin the Martyr 
and of St. Theophilus of Antioch that God the Word, co-eternal with 
the Father and consubstantial with Him, was not born out of the 
Father till just before the worlds were made and to make them, is 
before the birth of Origen, who was the originator, so far as appears, 
of the Eternal-Birth opinion. If it be said that after Origen the 
latter opinion prevailed in the Alexandrian School, and is maintained 
by the celebrated Athanasius; I reply that as even the Latin Cardi- 
nal, J. H. Newman, admits in a note on pages 416-423 of the Fifth 
Hdition (London, A. D. 1888) of his Arvans of the Fourth Century, 
the Non-Kternal-Birth tenet was for the first three centuries the 
more common and more widely spread view. ‘The only writer 
who maintained the other was Origen who was condemned for divers 
heresies in Anathema XI. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and inthe 
Definition of the Sixth. Besides, the Non-Eternal view was held, 
as Newman in that place shows, by Tatian in his Orthodox time, 
and he adds by Methodius also. ΑἹ] those were of the East. 


Among Westerns who held to Non-Eternal Birth, Newman 
names Hippolytus, Tertullian, Novatian, Lactantius, Zeno, and 
Victorinus, and most of them are proven by their writings to have 
held that view. 


Moreover, the mere fact that Athanasius held, as did Origen, the 
noted Catechist of Alexandria, his teacher to some extent, to Eternal 
Birth against the doctrine of St. Justin the Martyr, and of St. 
Theophilus of Antioch, which was approved by Nicaea, is of very little 
importance; for no later opinion can outweigh or equal the earlier 
one held in the Church from the first and ratified by an Ecumenical 
Council. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. Te 


Furthermore, great as Athanasius undoubtedly was, and greatly 
deserving for his long and glorious struggle for the consubstantiality 
and co-eternity of the Logos with the Father, against the creature- 
serving Arians, nevertheless he was not God, nor infallible, nor 
equal in authority to an Ecumenical Council; and no man asserts 
that he was. Indeed his difference from Nicaea was not limited to 
the doctrine of Eternal Birth: for in section 71 of his Apology 
Against the Arians, (page 101 in the Oxford English translation 
of S. Athanasius’ Historical Tracts, he impliedly faults the First 
Ecumenical Synod for its action in admitting Meletius to Commu- 
nion. 


And in another place he expresses the absurd notion that ‘‘/Zany 
men have become pure from all sin,’ see Note 3, page 294, volume 
I., (New York, A. D. 1867), of Smith’s Hagenbach’s History of Doc- 
trines. Athanasius refers to Jeremiah and John the Baptist. I once 
heard a Greek Archbishop, Alexander Lycurgus, refer to that notion as 
a strange error of Athanasius, so distinguished in other things. But 
no man is perfect. The sun has its spots. 


4. A word or two as so monks and nuns, a topic now somewhat 
agitated. The Church of England in all ages has held to the New 
Testament teaching that the virginal state is the higher. That is in 
effect in its Marriage Service. And it has from the Reformation 
times had a noble band of the choicest single clergy, such as Ridley 
Latimer, Hooper, Sheldon, George Herbert, Sancroft, and the Six 
Bishops who were sent by James II. to the Tower for Christ’s anti- 
image-worshipping Gospel. The fellowships in the English Univer- 
sities founded for single clergy have fostered them and sound learn- 
ing in their hands. But on the other hand, since the Oxford move- 
ment was started, an alarming spread of error among, not all but 
some of them, has rendered the order unpopular, and that though of 
the three creature-serving leaders of the movement, Pusey, Keble, 
and Newman, two were married, and remained in the communion of 
a Reformed Church to corrupt it, though the English correspondent 
of Zhe Churchman, of New York, in the issue for August 3, 1878, 
may be understood to imply that Keble died a Romanist, whereas 
Newman left it honestly, but mistakenly, and refused its pay when 
he could not do its work. And some have gotten the idea, notwith- 
standing the fact that nearly all reforms in the Church have been led 


112 Chapter II. 


by monks, that if a cleric is single he is more favorable to Roman 
tyranny than those who are married, and that he will not contend so 
strongly against its errors as they; whereas all history shows that 
the Canonical liberties of the Greek Church have been preserved by 
its monastic clergy, not by its married. The attempt to reform it in 
the eighth century was led by the better class of monks, and the 
married clergy made little or no sign, but always, the bulk of them 
seemingly, went with whatever party came into power. And all the 
Reformatory sentiments that I have heard from the Greek Church 
clergy of our time have been from the higher and more learned class 
of monks, not at all from the married clergy of that faith. 


There the single clergy have ever been first to enter the conflict 
for the just rights of their Church against Roman attempts at anti- 
canonical usurpation. 

The English monastics, like those whom I have mentioned, have 
done the same for their Church. And if they contend not for pagan- 
ism, but for the Six Ecumenical Councils, and for all that is primitive 
in doctrine, discipline, rite and custom, they will lead its phalanx, as 
they long did. All the Archbishops of Canterbury, from Parker to 
Wake, are said to have been single. But to-day many of the single 
are degenerate, for some believe in an alleged Real Presence which is 
against the Faith of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and worship it contrary 
to their own rubric, and to the faith of the Church from the begin- 
ning; some invoke saints, some worship altars, some worship crosses 
or other material things, relatively of course, but they are so igno- 
rant that they do not know that the heathen-worship of images 
is relative only. From such paganizers all sound single men must 
depart and form monasteries by themselves. 


The great bulk of the degenerate, creature-serving clergy are 
matried, not single. The better single clergy should separate their 
efforts from both single and married idolatrizers, and that at once, as 
in the sixteenth century, and fight their battle on the basis of the 
primitive, and of the Ecumenical Decisions. This will furnish them 
definite principles and a definite policy. Their opponents have 
neither. I regret to learn that the bulk of the newly organized 
orders of monks and nuns in the Anglican Communion are not as 
true to the good things in their Church, as the Greek monks are 
to the good things in theirs. In England, in 1879, I heard the 


y Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 113 


remark made, that there was hardly one of them, or none of them, 
where the Eucharist is not worshipped, though a rubric in their 
own Eucharistic Office brands it as ‘‘ /dolatry to be abhorred of all 
faithful Christians.’ Such houses should be shut, and every such 
idolatrous monk and nun who will not reform should be expelled 
and excommunicated. If they are allowed to bring the single life in 
the English Church into disrepute and disgrace, they will ruin their 
Communion. Neither the Greek Church nor the Latin Church 
prelates would permit their monks or nuns to be such traitors to 
what they deem the doctrines of their Communions. All the sound 
Anglican monks and nuns should be gathered into one order, and, 
in accordance with Matt. iv., το, should promise to serve God alone, 
and not to invoke any one but God, and not to profane the bread 
and wine of the Eucharist by worshipping them, nor Christ’s Divin- 
ity or humanity, which are not there, though His grace is. 


Furthermore, the monk should never fall into the Eustathian 
error condemned in the Canons of Gangra, of despising any of those 
clerics who retains the sole wife which he had before ordination, and 
lives in virtuous wedlock with her. For the single clergy and the 
married clergy supplement each other. 


Monks should be recognized according to the Ecumenical 
Canons, and the Scriptural teaching that the Virginal Life if spent 
in work for Christ is ‘‘deé¢er’’ than the married (I. Cor. vii., 38), 
though both states are approved. They should generally be chosen 
for bishops according to the general tenor of the New T'estament 
and the practice of the early Church. But they should be free, 
like the primitive monks, from all creature-invocation and from 
any use of images graven, or images painted. "They should have 
the same spirit against the use even of such things in churches as 
had the glorious and holy monk of blessed memory, St. 
Epiphanius, Metropolitan of Cyprus, and friend of St. Athanasius and 
his zealous coadjutor against the creature-service of Arianism, and 
author of amost valuable work Against Heresies, who tore a pictured 
veil in the Church at Anablatha, in his horror at seeing such an 
unwonted thing in God’s house, and told them to bury a poor man 
init, and gave them another veil in its stead. (83). No manisa 


(83). Tyler on Image Worship, pages 163-167. All of Tyler’s works against 
creature-service shouv'd be in every monk’s library. 


114 Chapter 71. 

true Christian monk unless he keeps clear from creature-worship, 
which in the Scriptures is spoken of as spiritual whoredom, and from 
everything like the use of pictures and other images which have led 
to it and destroyed millions of poor souls. He should have no such 
thing nor any cross about his person. He should make his own 
Canon XXXVI. of Elvira, (84), A. D. 305 or 309. He should have 
Christ’s cross and its doctrine in his mind and heart, and he will not 
need the material cross. With the Christian champion in Se¢tion 
X XIX. of Minucius Felix’s Octavius, he should say ‘‘Cvosses, more- 
over, we neither worship nor wish for.’’ We should try to keep the 
Church in that spiritual and holy state in which it was in the third 
century, when a heathen could ask, ‘‘ Why have ye no altars,’’ [they 
had the holy table, though, after Christ’s example], “πο ‘¢emples,”’ 
[the Roman civil law forbade them] ‘‘xo known images ?’’ (Section 
X. of the Octavius). He will remember what the monk Augustine, 
Bishop of Hippo, said in his grief at seeing the worship of pictures 
by many, though they had not then long been in churches, (See his 
Morals of the Catholic Church, book 1, Chapter xxxiv., page 47, of 
the English translation published by the Clarks of Edinburgh), and 
how he deemed it safest not to use them at all, and said, ‘‘ /¢ zs wrong 
to place likeness to God tn temples.’’ (On Faith and the Creed, 
Chapter VII.) 

But alas! some Anglican monks and nuns in our time are the 
curse and plague of their own Church, by introducing into it and 
spreading creature-invocation, and giving velatzve worship to mere 
things, such as altars, or crosses, or images, or to an alleged Real 
Presence of Christ’s Divinity on the Lord’s table, though St. Cyril 
of Alexandria teaches against Nestorius that It is not there; and to 
His human flesh there, though St. Cyril teaches that we ‘do not eat a 
man’s flesh there, but the body of God the Word; that is of course 
His figurative body, and although St. Cyril brands an assertion of 
Nestorius that we eat flesh as resulting in cannibalism, (ἀνθρωποφαγία, 
Sections 4 and 5 of Cyril’s Book IV. of his Five-Book Contradiction of 
the Blasphemies of Nestorius). 

To conclude, (1) the monastic lifein the Anglican Church should 
be respected and honored, but only if free from all tinge of the 
spiritual whoredom of worshipping creatures; and things made, such 


(84). Tyler on Image worship, pages 151-153. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 115 


as relics, images painted, images graven, crosses, altars, Communion 
tables, and all things else. God alone is to be worshipped. It is 
his prerogative. We are anathematized by Anathema IX. of the 
Fifth Ecumenical Synod, if we bow to Christ ‘‘zz’’ His “‘ 7wo 
Natures.’’ We cannot worship his humanity by itself. So St. 
Cyril, of Alexandria, teaches in the Eighth of his XII. Anathemas, 
which were approved by the Third Ecumenical Council, which must 
therefore be received. Before every other dogma comes the dogma 
that every act of religious service ἐς prerogative to God, (Matt. 1: 
10, Mark. xii., 29-30). The monk should therefore be zealous for 
that as the first thing, the first duty of his profession for which he 
should be willing to give his life blood, as three noble English 
monks gave their life blood in the reign of the idolater Mary the 
Bloody; I mean Ridley, Latimer and Hooper. Be like Nicholas 
Ridley, Bishop of London, who removed idolatry and anti-primitive 
altars from churches, and put the holy tables in them as they were 
at first, rebuked Mary as Elijah rebuked Ahab, and died a martyr 
for the truth that God alone is to be worshipped. He was pre- 
eminently the scholar of the Reformation, so that the creature- 
invoking and image-worshipping Romanists said, ‘‘ Zhe Reformation 
leaneth upon Cranmer, and Cranmer leaneth upon Ridley.” Bea 
monk like Hugh Latimer, Bishop of Worcester, who opposed the 
use of images in churches, and died for the view of St. Cyril of 
Alexandria, that we do not eat Divinity or the flesh of a man in the 
Eucharist, and for the truth that God alone is to be worshipped. 
Be a monk like John Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester, who held to 
the faith to the last that all religious service is prerogative to God. 
Be a monk like Sancroft and the Six Bishops who withstood 
that English Jeroboam, James II., who would make Israel to sin, 
went to the Tower for their faith, and saved their Church and people 
from ruin. 

Be an anti-creature-serving monk like Athanasius and Cyril, 
and that vast army of early monks, who maintained the faith 
against the creature-serving Arius, as is shown by Socrates in his 
Ecclesiastical History, Book IV., Chapters 23 and 24; and Sozomen’s 
Ecclesiastical History, Book VI., Chapter 20. 


At the same time be a common sense man. Have a zeal accord- 
ing to knowledge. Do not imagine, after the fashion of some monks 


116 Chapter 77. 


of other Communions, that you get into the odor of sanctity by being 
dirty and smelling so foul that cleanly people justly deem you a 
reproach to the Christian religion. Some monks have been and 
some still are lousy and nasty. Avoid such delirious trash. Let 
your dress be very clean and simple, and of plain, coarse, cheap, 
black material, but let it be coat, trousers, vest, etc., as is most con- 
venient. Let your underclothing be white and scrupulously neat and 
clean. For cleanliness is akin to godliness. Keep the long robes 
for church, processions, and schools. Do not call your order by any 
Saint’s name. The Ecumenical Canons call you ‘‘sonks’’ only, as 
for instance, ‘Canons IV., VII.; XVI, ΤΙ πα XXIIL., ofethe 
Fourth Ecumenical Council. The Greeks to-day, as of yore, use 
that term for their monks. They are not called Basilians, after St. 
Basil the Great, nor Athanasians, after St. Athanasius, nor by any 
mere man’s name. Nor were any Westerns called Benedictines 
before Benedict of Nursia, in the sixth century. Every true monk 
is God’s monk, nota man’s. For he dedicates himself to God, in 
accordance with Christ’s invitation in Matt. xix.,12. Let there be 
but one order among us as among the Greeks still. 


But divide that order into different branches to find a fit place 
for each one’s talents, as is done in at least one of the Roman orders 
to some extent: that is, let there be, 1, a clevzcal branch; 


(a). For the scholarly clerics to devote themselves to editing 
and translating the best texts of Scripture, of the Ecumenical and 
the Local Synods, and the Fathers, and to purging them from the 
corruptions of creature-servers; and for giving all the various read- 
ings of different texts and manuscripts of all such writings: and for 
the writing of learned and of popular works to defend all primitive 
do¢trine, discipline, rite and custom, and the Six Synods; 


(b). For the more stirring preachers to go hither and thither to 
preach the faith in school houses, the open air, and in churches, and 
wherever a door is open to win men from sin and from heresy, and 
from creature-service, to the faith of the Six Ecumenical Councils, 
to found churches, and to save our land from error; 

(c). For parish work wherever the churches are without vestries, 
and without lay controllers, and under the control of the monastic 
order, subject to the bishop; 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 117 


(4). For teaching work of all kinds. 

2. Let there be a /ay-monk branch, 

(e). For teaching work; 

(f). For hospital work; 

5). For labor in the field, or in the shop, or elsewhere, to assist 
in the support of the whole monastic body, clerical and lay; 


(h). Some monks might be detailed to assist in the different 


kinds of work under the clergy; I mean under heads ‘‘a,’’ ‘‘b,’’ “ς᾽ 
andy di. 
So the nuns should be divided into heade ‘‘d,’’ ‘‘e”’ and ‘“‘f,”’ 


according as their tastes and capacities lie. 


All should be active, after the example of Christ, John, Paul, 
and the other monks of the New Testament. Christ prayed His 
Father, not that He should take His disciples out of the world, but 
that He should keep them from evil, (John xvii., 15. And the 
wisest single bishops and clerics and laics have ever tried to re- 
member that, and not to waste their time in idleness and laziness. 
The Massalians were idle and dirty vagabonds, who are condemned 
by the Third Ecumenical Synod, as well as by St. Epiphanius. 


Moreover, let monk-preachers use common sense, and not set 
monastic ideals of life before marvrzed people, but marriage ideals, such 
as in their state of life it is best for them to follow. 


Let all creature-serving monks and nuns be at once expelled 
from their order, and if they refuse to reform, let them be excom- 
municated. 

And to that end let the bishop examine every monk’s and every 
nun’s faith and practice, once every three months, and as often as he 
will. 

Avoid imitating mediaeval and modern Rome and her customs. 
Follow the primitive Church and the Six Councils in all things; and 
you will yet save the Anglican Communion, as men of your order 
saved it at the Reformation, when they purged away idolatry and 
brought the blessing instead of the curse on the English-speaking 
peoples, and so made less than five millions to become one hundred 
and twenty millions; and a realm confined to the British Islands 
to include about one-sixth of the land of the globe, and about one- 
fifth of its population. 


118 Chapter LI. 


You will save your race and Church, as the seven bishops- who 
went to the tower in A. D. 1687, saved them; and your order, thus 
being as of yore, champions for Christ against all creature-worship, 
will be blessed of God and man. For they will appreciate you at 
your true worth. 


In Discipline the following things should be done at once as 
fundamental : 


(a). All such new-fangled bodies as Conventions, Diocesan and 
General, all standing committees, all vestries, and all lay control of 
church temporalities should be at once abolished; and the regular 
half-yearly meetings of the Synod of each province under its own 
Metropolitan should be restored, and he must have the rights 
guaranteed him by the Ecumenical Canons; for instance by Canons 
YV., V. and VI. of Nicaea, and Canon XIX. of Chalcedon: and the 
bishop must have full control of the temporalities of the Church, and 
manage them by a steward chosen out of his own clergy, in accord- 
ance with Canon XXVI. of Chalcedon, and Canons XXIV. and 
XXV. of Antioch, which have been made Ecumenical by Canon I. 
of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. A comment on the difference 
between episcopal control of the temporalities and non-episcopal, is 
the fact that in New York City, for instance, nearly every Romish 
Church has a parsonage adjoining, where the priest may be readily 
found for all the fun¢tions of his religion, its so-called baptism, its 
anointing of the sick, its burials of the dead, its Masses for the dead, 
its marriages, etc.; whereas quite often in the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, it puzzles many a person in search of a parish clergyman 
to christen a dying child, or to visit the sick, etc., to find out where 
he lives. Sometimes he lives so far from his church that the child 
dies before he can be found. Every parish clergyman should have a 
parsonage by the side of his church; or, if that is impossible, then 
one opposite it, or very close to it. In buying sites for churches 
Rome wisely gets enough land for Church and parsonage, or priest’s 
house, at once. The Anglican bishop and the steward of his diocese 
should do the same, if they would be wise. 


No bishop should permit any church property to be mortgaged, 
nor should he be permitted to alienate a cent of it without the 
consent of his Metropolitan. He should be compelled to so promise 
and vow at his ordination, and should be limited to use so much of 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Couneils. 119 


it only as is necessary for a seemly and fit living. If he be married 
he should be compelled to keep his own private property separate 
from the church’s, lest his heirs claim church property as theirs, 
(Canon XXIV. of Antioch; Canon XL. of the Apostles). If 
single, without any near relative dependent upon him, he should 
make the church his heir, (See Bingham, Book V., Chapter IV., 
Section 9). 

In case of resignation for due cause, a pension should be allowed 
them, (Bingham, Book VI., Chapter IV., Sections 2 and 2). 


The bishop, having the whole property and all the cures of his 
diocese under his control, is bound to see to it that all his clergy 
who are sound in faith and holy in life, shall always have such 
clerical work as they can do, anda modest support through their 
whole lives, asin the ancient Church. But to-day in the Protestant 
Episcopal Church, to the burning shame of its uncanonical lawyer- 
system, there are hundreds of poor clergy without place or support, 
who live as best they may, on their friends, on charity, or in any 
way. Some of them are better fitted to preach than ever, because 
they are more experienced, older and wiser, but their gray hair 
disqualifies them or makes against them, and keeps them out of 
cures where women and ignorant and worldly and unspiritual vestries 
rule. Rome does better by her clerics, for she promotes them, as in 
any well organized army, as they acquire age and experience and 
wisdom. 

(b). Every bishop should have the power which is given him in 
the Canons, of placing and removing his clergy, of ruling, and 
deposing them, and of promoting them according to their merits, 
which is given him in the Ecumenical Canons everywhere. He can 
then see to it that Canon VI. of Chalcedon, is obeyed. It forbids 
ordinations without a title; and a title means a place which a cleric 
may hold not merely while the fancies of the vestry or the women 
of the parish favor him, but for his whole life, or till the bishop 
remove him and give him another, higher or lower, according to his 
merits or demerits. Thereis no title, in the full sense, in any diocese 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. 


And a thing of chief importance is for the Bishop to examine, 
himself in person, or by his Vicar General or Protosyncellus, the 
faith and morals of all his clergy every year, their teachings and 


120 Chapter 77. 


their excellencies and their defects; for, as matters now are, when a 
man has once secured presbyter’s orders he is practically independent 
of his Bishop, and may be creature-worshipping, image-worshipping, 
or infidelizing, and his Bishop cannot stop him, though he be wast- 
ing Christ’s vineyard, and corrupting and ruining the sheep of His 
pasture. 

The Bishop should respect his monks and nuns, but should 
make half-yearly examinations of their faith and pra¢tice, and see to 
it that no idolatrizers, creature-invokers, infidelizers, or any immoral 
person be permitted among them to the detriment of himself, herself, 
or others, and to the disgrace of the diocese and Church. ‘The 
monks and nuns should assist him in such matters zealously and 
wisely, for the glory of Christ and his Church, and for the good 
name and fame of their own order. St. Paul would not permit us to 
keep company, nor even to eat with an idolater or a fornicator, even 
though he be called a brother, (I. Cor..v., 10, 41). 


(c). In accordance with Canon VI. of I. Constantinople, and 
Canon XWII. of Chalcedon, after the doctrine of the Six Synods 
is restored, there should be several Patriarchates in the United 
States, where there is enough Anglican population to warrant it. 
Boston, for instance, should be one for all New England; New 
York another, with perhaps Albany added, to agree with Canons 
XII. and XVII. of Chalcedon, etc. Now there are not more than 
enough for one or two. 

In England, London should be a Patriarchal See, with jurisdic- 
tion over all England. Canterbury should, on the death of the 
present incumbent, be suffragan to it, and a new division of provinces 
should be made. Glasgow, in Scotland, should be the seat of an 
autocephalous Exarch of all Scotland. So the Archbishop of Dublin 
should be autocephalous Exarch of all Ireland. These matters will 
help discipline, and give the English-speaking races that organiza- 
tion which is essential to their due influence in the world. It is a 
striking proof-of the simplicity of the English in their ecclesiastical 
matters, that London, far the largest city in the Christian world, 
should be a mere bishopric, and suffragan to the little one-horse town 
of Canterbury, which is so insignificant compared with some other 
cities of England, that it might sometimes be difficult for an Oriental 

o explain just where it is, or why it should be over London. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 121 


Finally, in Daéscipline, all the Ecumenical Canons should be 
strictly observed, and the Carthaginian decisions against the claim 
of Rome for Appellate Jurisdiction in Africa, should be adopted. by 
the Bishops of the Church of England, for England, against the 
claim of Rome to Appellate Jurisdiction there, and by every other 
English-speaking people for their own jurisdiction against that claim 
of Rome. 

It would be well, also, to adopt such Canons of early local 
Councils as agtee with the Six Synods and are needed by the 
Anglican Communion, such for instance, as Canon XXXVI. of 
Elvira, against the use of pictures in churches, and other local 
Canons against other abuses, as for instance, its Canons XXXIV. 
and XXXV.; and Canon II. of I. Carthage, against the worship of 
relics; and Canon XXIII. of III. Carthage, that all prayer at the 
altar shall be addressed to the Father; and many or most of the 
so-called Apostolic Canons. 

(b). No clergyman should be allowed to belong to any secret 
society, nor should any laic. All that is valuable and right in such 
societies can be secured by insurance and mutual benefit societies 
within the pale of the Anglican Communion. Rome wisely forbids 
secret societies in her pale, for through the Confessional she knows 
how little they care for any church authority and how Anti-Christian 
sone of them are. Freemasonry in parts of Europe is decidedly 
Anti-Christian. Its partisan advocates claim for it a fictitious 
antiquity greater than that of the church, though it is perhaps not 
much more than two hundred years old. It has a priesthood out- 
side of the Orthodox Church, who are sometimes laics, or Anti- 
Trinitarian preachers, who sometimes perform their rites over the 
grave after the Episcopal service has been said by the minister in the 
Church. It mingles heretics, schismatics and Jews, and infidels, 
with the Orthodox. It fellowships those excommunicated by the 
church, and buries them with words of hope. It induces many 
children of the church to have fellowship with unbelievers and to 
expend money and time and effort for that society which should be 
spent in the Church, where Christ commands it all to be spent. and 
where alone it has promise of heavenly reward. 


The Masocic tie interferes even in the election of bishops. I 
have never been a member of any secret society, but I was assured 


122 Chapter 77. 


by a Freemason that in A. D. 1859, in the Convention which elected 
Rev. Dr. W. H. Odenheimer, Bishop of New Jersey, a Freemason, 
over Rev. Dr. Milo Mahan, a non-Freemason, and a much more 
learned man, that tie was appealed to in favor of Dr. oe 
and that it made him bishop. 


The Freemason who told me was a clergyman, and was dis- 
pleased that the appeal had been made in that case. And I am 
informed by another Freemason that it sometimes elects bishops 
and rectors. That is worse than the Nepotism of the Middle 
Ages. It interferes, though itself outside of the Church, with the 
Church. How can any conscientious Christian; much more, how 
can any conscientious clergyman, perfer that selfish, non-Christian 
tie to the eternal and supreme bond of the Church? The Church 
has the whole domain of faith and morals entrusted to her by Christ, 
and may justly excommunicate any of her children for belonging to 
such secret societies, for they do much of evil, undermine Church 
authority, and negative its excommunications. And all the good 
they do Christ’s law commands to be done in the Church which it 
would so advance. Selfishness lies at the basis of Freemasonry and 
similar societies. 


3. In CHRISTIAN RITES, (a) the Trine Immersion should be re- 
stored in baptism, each dip completely covering the whole body as of 
yore: See Chrystal’s Hzstory of Modes of Baptism, page 285, B. 

The seventh canon of the Second Ecumenical Council rejects 
the Eunomian change of the trine immersion into the single as zz- 
valid, ‘The change is witnessed to by Theodoret and Sozomen as 
quoted in Chrystal’s Azstory of Modes, pages 78, 79; and the canon 
itself as quoted in id., pages 94, 95 and 96. Bishop Beveridge, one 
of the most learned men that the Church of England has produced, 
speaking of the thrice dipping, writes: 


“ That ttwas in some way handed down from the Apostles, we have 
not dared to deny,’’ Chrystal, id., page 194. In Chapter XI. of that 
work will be found a number of the most learned Anglican theolo- 
gians who have testified for the old mode, some of whom have 
pleaded for its restoration. ‘The Church of England retained it till 
towards the end of the sixteenth century, or till some time in the 
seventeenth. As tothe Trine Immersion in it, see Chapters X. and 
XI. of Chrystal’s Aistory of Modes; and Bingham’s Antiquities of the 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 123 


Christian Church, Book XI., Chapter XI., Sections 6, 7, 8; and 
Book XIII., Chapter V., Section 7, where Theodoret is referred to 
again against the Kunomian change in Mode. 

About one-third of the communicants of the different Protestant 
denominations of our country are immersionists, and their number 
is constantly increasing, though most of them hold to the terrible 
heresy of Antipaedobaptism; and it is absolutely certain that 
none but an immersing Church will ever win them to entire’ 
truth. Yet there are whole dioceses of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in our land where there is not one of its churches with a 
font or baptismal pool large enough for the entire immersion 
of an adult, and very few with font large enough for the total 
immersion of an infant. That lack is the more noteworthy and 
strange when we recollect that the Church of England in the first 
Prayer Book of Edward VI. ordered the priest to dip thrice every 
well child, and its present Prayer Book orders dipping for every 
well child and ‘‘dip’’ comes first even in the American Episcopal 
Church rubric yet; and still the baptizer in the Baptismal Office 
prays God, 

‘*Sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin; and 
grant that ¢hzs child now to be baptized THEREIN.”’ 


And still in the Church Catechism we read the following: 


‘‘Ouestion—What is the outward visible sign or form in Bap- 
tism ? 

‘* Answer—Water; WHEREIN the person is baptized, /z the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’’ 


Justin the Martyr makes the rebirth of the Christian to be his 
coming out of the womb of the water; and Tertullian, Hippolytus, and 
the old writer under the name of Cyril of Jerusalem agree with him 
(85), as do the ancients generally, and as does the English Baptismal 
Office still, which always contemplates dipping as the common cus- 
tom, as it was when it was made, for it thanks God that the baptized 
child is regenerate, that is reborn, for all the Reforming Bishops, so 
far as appears, had been thrice immersed in Baptism, as had Edward 
VI. and Queen Elizabeth; for it was the common mode of the Church 
of England when they were born, and we have an account of the 


(85). Chrystal’s A7story of the Modes of Baptism, pages 59, 60, 63, 70, 71. 


124 Chapter 71. 


baptism of some of them, I mean of Elizabeth and also of Edward. 
Abolish the dipping and you have no symbol of rebirth in pouring 
or sprinkling, and men are at sea on that matter. 


If the Anglican Church does its duty in the matter of an entire 
Restoration of the Six World-Councils, and all primitive doctrine, 
discipline rite and custom, and takes every wise opportunity to 
thoroughly restore the successional in everything primitive where it 
can, it will soon have the bulk of the American people. But if its 
bishops do not that, it will be what it now is, one of the smallest 
religious denominations in our land, and in time some other religious 
organization, true to the Six Synods and to all that is primitive, will 
take its place, as the Reformed Church took the place of the Unre- 
formed in England at the Reformation in the sixteenth century, and 
as the Norman Lanfranc took the place of the Saxon Stigand in the 
eleventh, and as the Roman Saxon Church took the place of the 
British Church in the seventh. 

(Ὁ). The Confirmation, that is Chrisming and (c) the Eucharis- 
tizing of infants should be restored according to ancient primitive 
practice. Learned Anglicians have favored the restoration of both. 
Bingham’s citations show the primitiveness of them; see his Axtigaz- 
ties, Book XII., Chapter I., Sections 1, 2, 3, 4,5, and6; and Book XV., 
Chapter IV., Section 7, and the reference to Cyril of Jerusalem’s 
testimony in Book XIII., Chapter V., Section 7, of Bingham. 

The Anointings and post-Baptismal Chrismings should be 
restored, for they are beautiful and primitive symbols; the latter, 
the anointing to be priests of Christ in the universal priesthood of 
believers, is in accordance with the doctrine in I. Peter ii., 5, 9; and 
Rev. i., 6, and, some think it may be referred to in I. John ii., 20. 

(d). The use of leavened bread only in the Eucharist: and the 
use of wine, mixed with water, in the Eucharistic Rite, not must, 
should be enforced everywhere. See Bingham’s Aztiguities, Book 
MV = Chapter ΤΙ: Sections 5,:6, 75.8, and Ὁ. The supposition of John 
Mason Neal on page 1051, of the General Introduction to his Hrstory 
of the Holy Eastern Church, that ‘‘the first Eucharist was celebrated 
with unleavened bread,’ is utterly baseless, for different Fathers 
agree that Christ antedated the eating of the Passover on that night 
by twenty-four hours, so that his death might occur at the very time 
when the priests in the temple were sacrificing the foretypes of Him 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 125 


the true Passover-Lamb. And it is clear that the priest had not eaten 
it on the night when Christ did, for on the morning following we read 
of the priests and people who went to Pilate with Christ, that ‘‘ They 
themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, 
but that they might eat the Passover,’ John XVIII., 28. But on the 
night on which Christ ate the Passover leavened bread was still 
used. Joseph Samuel C. F. Frey, in his Assays on the Passover, 
London, A. D. 1837, pages 26-34, shows the truth on such matters. 
He had been a Jew. Neale could bring forward no fact capable 
of proving that any of the primitive Western Christians used un- 
leavened wafers in the Lord’s Supper, and he shows that learned 
Westerns denied that they did. Andin the context he admits that 
the Greeks ‘always used leavened bread, and leavened bread only,” 
(History of Eastern Church, Gen. Introd., page 1057.) 


Moreover, the term ἄρτος, used in the New Testament for the 
bread of the Eucharist is the ordinary term for /eavened bread. It 
is never there termed ἄζυμα, that is w2leavened wafers. 

(e). The Holy Table should always be in the chancel, with a 
place behind it for the bishop’s throne, and for the crown of presbyters 
(corona presbyterorum) on his right and left. 


No altar should be permitted anywhere. That has been done 
in the later Latin Church, but Bingham shows that the table was 
anciently used East and West. See his Aztequzties, Book VIII., 
Chapter VI., Sections 11 and 15. 


(f). The Restoration, where it is possible, of the Public Confes- 
sion of Sins on graver matters before the whole Congregation, accord- 
ing to the Ecumenical Canons, such for instance, as Canons XI., 
XII., XIII. and XIV. of Nicaea, etc.; and where it can not well be, 
the guarding and directing all private Confessions by the bishop, so 
that it may be freed from the usurpations and misdirectings of 
unlearned and creature-serving men, who, without any faculties 
thereto, take the office of Confessors upon themselves, and use it to 
teach silly women the sins of worshipping saints, and altars, and the 
Nestorian error of worshipping the Eucharist, and whatsoever other 
Ecumenically condemned error they please, contrary to the mind of 
the sound bishop, who, according to the Canons, and the faith and 
practice of the Church from the beginning, and the New Testament 
itself, is the sole repository and exerciser for his diocese of the power 


126 Chapter IT. 


of binding and loosing; so that always, even to this day, in the 
Greek Church and in the Latin, the Confessor must be delegated to 
that function, and duly licensed thereto by his Bishop. 


I am informed that the learned Bishop Whittingham, of Mary- 
land, was unable to control some of his young and- Romanizing 
clergy who heard confessions, but, notwithstanding his wishes, they 
directed women in ways towards error. ‘They should have been 
made to obey at once, or been deposed. One of them at last went to 
Rome, and led some female members of his flock with him to it. 


(g). All candidates for Holy Orders should be either celibates, 
or men who have been married no more than once, and all marriages 
after ordination to the diaconate should be followed by deposition, 
according to the Ecumenical Canons. Compare the matter as to 
Paphnutius at Nicaea, and its decision, and Canon XIV. of Chalce- 
don, which evidently implies that no deacon, presbyter or bishop 
may marry after ordination; Canons I. and II., of Neocaesarea, and 
Canon X. of Ancyra, both of which are made Ecumenical by Canon 
I. of Chalcedon. Compare also the Apostolic Canons XVII., 
XVIII., XIX. and XXVI., which are worthy of a place in the Ecu- 
menical Code. For strictness in such matters is necessary to the 
preservation of unquestioned orders; besides they express what has 
been the custom of the Church, seemingly, from the beginning. 


(h). Marriage should be in strict accordance with the New 
Testament and with Christian Law from the beginning. 


The English Church Marriage Service should be used in the 
American Prayer Book instead of the mutilated form now in its 
place, for much of the omitted matter is dogmatically and pra¢tically 
very important as an aid to soundness in faith, and morality in life; 
and in the latter respect particularly as a warning against those sins 
of prevention of conception, abortion, etc., which are depleting the 
American population and filling their places with the offspring of 
foreigners, whose women are moral enough not to commit the crimes 
of Sodom and Gomorrah, but bear children. 


(i). The bishops should ensure the observance of the Scriptural 
and primitive prohibition of any divorce at all fora woman; and of any 
divorce for a man, except for the cause laid down by Christ, that is 
for the adultery of the wife; and the prohibition of all marriage with- 
in those degrees within which the Church has always, from the first, 


᾿ 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 127 


forbidden it; and the enforcement of Church Law on that matter by 
suspension whenever necessary, and by excommunication at the last, — 
as Paul enforced it on the incestuous Corinthian; whatever be the 
Anti-New Testament and wicked State Law on that subject. . 


(j). The custom mentioned in James v., 13, 14 and 15, of send- 
ing for the elders of the Church and of their praying over, not 
merely the sick-a-bed, as in the Latin Church, but also over the 
merely weak asin the Greek and the anointing them with olive-oil im 
the name of the Lord for health and for the remission of sins, should be 
restored. As it is now, an Anglican clergyman can do little more 
to help the sick and dying than a pious layman ora pious laywoman. 
The Greeks call it Εὐχέλαιον, that is Prayer-Oil, and give it whenever 
it is desired to the merely infirm, and do not always postpone it till 
danger of death comes. The Greek custom is nearer St. James’ 
directions in the passage above. It should not be called Axtreme 
Unction, that is, the last Anointing, for it often is not the last, nor 
does St. James make it always the last. All persons should leave 
the infirm or sick person with the anointing presbyters, and there 
should be, wherever it can be, two or three at the least, for St. James 
uses the plural ‘‘ eders,’’ (James v., 14). The confession and the 
prayer mentioned in the immediate context in St. Jamesiiv., 10,17, 
and 18, could well be joined with the rite. 


(k). So Christian burial should be given to Christians only, 
that is, to the baptized, chrismed and Eucharistized ; for how can I 
speak peace where God has spoken none ? 


(1). The ancient commemoration of all the faithful departed 
common to the whole church from the beginning, should be restored 
with the prayers, and thanksgiving for God's mercies to them. So 
especially should be commemorated the blessed Reformers and Re- 
storers of true religion in all ages, including Ridley, Latimer and 
Hooper, Hezekiah, Josiah, Edward VI., Elizabeth, and all who have 
fallen on field or flood for the fundamental truth that all invocation 
and all other acts of religious service are prerogative to God alone. 
That practice has a powerful influence, as among the Jews, the 
Greeks, and the Latins, to attach men to their ancestral faith. The 
church that neglects it is not wise. But we must steer clear of the 
Roman doctrine of Purgatory. 


As the Universal Church has never defined as to what a Sacra- 


128 Chapter 77. 


ment is, nor as to the number of Sacraments, it is well not to do so 
till she does. The Greeks do not use the word Sacrament at all, but 
Mystery. 
SECTION 8. 
AMONG THE LUTHERANS. 
REFERENCES. 


1. CaARpzovil, fsagoge in Libros Ecclesiarum Lutheranoruni 
Symbolicos, Lipsiae, 1665; 1675. 

2. Tirrmann, Libri Symbolict Ecclesiae Evangelicae, Editio 
Secunda, A. D. 1827. 

3. Sylloge Confessionum sub tempus reformandae Ecclesiae edt- 
tarum, Oxonii, A. D, 1827. 

4. Dr. E. KOLLNER, Symbolik, Hamburg, A. D. 1837. ‘This 
contains the literature on this subject. 

5. SCHAFE’S Creeds of Christendom, fourth edition, A. D. 1890, 
Harper’s, New York. 


DIVISION I. 
ECUMENICAL SYMBOLS. 


τι 
THE SYMBOL OF THE 318 HOLY FATHERS OF NICAEA. 


I am not aware that the formularies of the Lutherans mention 
this Creed, nor am I aware that they use it. 


2. 
THE SYMBOL OF THE 150 OF I. CONSTANTINOPLE. 
The Formula of Concord receives this (86). It has the Western 


(86.) Formula Concordiae ad init.: Et quia statim post apostolorum tempora, 
imo etiam cum adhuc superstites essent, falsi doctores et haeretici exorti sunt, 
contra quos in primitiva Ecclesia Symbola sunt composita, id est, breves et 
categoricae confessiones, quae unanimem Catholicae Christianae fidei Consensum 
et Confessionem Orthodoxorum et verae Ecclesiae complectebantur, (ut sunt 
Symbolum Apostolicum, Nicenum, et Athanasianum), profitemnr publice, nos 
illa ampledti, et rejicimus omnes Haereses, omniaque dogmata, quae contra 
illorum sententiam unquam in Ecclesiam Dei sunt inveca. 

Farther on, in the /ormula Concordiae we read: Et quia jam olim sincera 
Christi do¢trina, in genuino et sano sensu, ex sacris literis collecta, et in 
articulos seu capita brevissima contra Haereticorum corruptelas digesta est, 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 129 


additions of the Roman Church version, and like it, has ‘‘ex Maria 
Virgine,’’ instead of ‘‘e¢ Maria Virgine,’’ in Article III., (87). 


DIVISION II. 
LOCAL CREEDS. 
I: 
THE ROMAN OR WESTERN. 
The Formula of Concord receives this (88), in the eighth century, 
that is in the present form. (89). 


Zs 
THE ATHANASIAN. 


The Formula of Concord receives this. (90). 


Dr. Schaff, note 1, page 180, volume 3, of his Crveeds of Christen- 
dom, states that ‘‘ the Apostles, the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds 
* ck -* are incorporated in the Lutheran Book of Concord.’’ ‘That 
book on the same page speaks of them as ‘‘ the three approved 


Symbols.”’ 
Φ DIVISION III. 


THE SIX ECUMENICAL SYNODS, AND THEIR ENACTMENTS IN DOC- 
TRINE, AND DISCIPLINE, AND RITE. 


I have not met with any proof that the Lutheran Symbolical 
books recognize these, (91). 

They do, however, recognize faith in the Ecumenical Symbol 
of the 150. But I am not aware that they receive the Ecumenical 
Norms of Definition on it, and I am not aware that they recognize 


amplectimur etiam tria, illa tria Catholica, et generalia summae auctoritatis 
Symbola: Apostolicum videlicet, Nicaenum et Athanasii. Haec enim agnos- 
cimus esse breves quidem, sed easdem maxime pias, atque in verbo Dei solide 
fundatas, praeclaras confessiones fidei, quibus omnes Haereses, quae iis tempori- 
bus Ecclesias Christi perturbarunt, perspicue et solide refutantur. 

These passages are in Tittmann’s 17677 Syméolict, pages 439, 487. 

(87). See Tittmann’s L7bri Symbolict, as in last note, and id., pages 3, 4. 

(88). Id., as in note 86 above. 

(89) 1ἅ.» Ῥ' 9: i: 

(go). Id., as in note 86. See the Creed itself, id., pages 4-6. 

(91). As to Luther’s own opinions on Councils, see CARPzOv., Jsagoge 1” 
Libros Symbolicos, p. 776, and under Concilia in the index to that work. 


130 Chapter II. 


the binding authority of the Ecumenical Canons. Certainly much 
of their discipline is not based on obedience to them. And as to the 
do¢trines of the Symbol of the 150 and the utterances of the Formula 
of Concord, many of them in the Old World and in this deny some, 
or most of them. Still others maintain them all, with the exception 
of Article IX., which they could not receive in the full sense without 
receiving the Six Ecumenical Synods. As things are at present 
among the Lutherans, do¢trine, discipline and rite are too much at 
loose ends. Οὔτ and system are sadly needed. Let us hope that 
as that largest or Protestant Communions has gotten rid of so much 
that is idolatrous and Romish, and has restored so much that is 
primitive and Ecumenical, it may complete the work of the entire 
Restoration of the doctrine, discipline and rite of the Six Ecumeni- 
cal Councils, and that before long; aye, as soon as possible. The 
Swedish part of it has at least a nominal Archbishop and Bishops, 
and so has the Finnish branch, and so both have more or less of the 
provincial system of the Ecumenical Canons still. 


Though I have not met with any definite statement in the 
Lutheran Formularies that they receive the Six Ecumenical Councils, 
nevertheless they declare for much of their do¢trine ; for instance, 
Article I. of the Augsburgh Confession, condemns the Arians, 
Euromians, and Samosatenes; Article II. condemns the Pelagians ; 
Article III. condemns Nestorian and Eutychian errors: and the 
Formula of Concord, Article VIII., Ox the Person of Christ, Affirma- 
tive, Section VII., condemns Nestorian error, and a¢tually calls the 
Virgin Mary, ‘‘ Mother of God,’ (Mater Det), instead of confining 
itself to the more accurate church term, approved in the Third 
Ecumenical Council, Dezpara, that is ‘‘ Bringer Forth of God.’ So 
in Section XII. there, page 153, volume 3, in Schaff’s Cveeds, etc., 
it condemns Nestorius and Eutyches, but falls into the heresy, 
forbidden by the Third Synod, of the Communication of the Properties 
of Christ's Two Natures. "That Formula of Concord also condemns 
the Anabaptistic renewal of the Apollinarian error, that God the 
Word did not take flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary, and that 
infants may be saved without baptism, (Schaff, Id., page 174), and 
the Monophysite error renewed by the Schwenkfeldians, that Christ’s 


human nature has been changed into Divinity (id., page 177). So 
the errors of the Arians and other Anti-Trinitarians, are condemned 
or. pages 178-179, in the same Formula, 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 131 


SECTION 9. 
AMONG THE REFORMED. 
REFERENCES. 

I. Jo. Curist. Guin. AuGcusti, Corpus Librorum Symbolic- 
orum qui in Ecclesia Reformatorum auctoritatem publicam obtinuerunt. 
Elberfeldi, A. D. 1827. 

2. BUTLER’S Confessions of Faith; London, 1816. 


SYNOPSIS. 
SECTION 1. 
THE ECUMENICAL SYMBOLS. 
i 
THE SYMBOL OF THE 318 HOLY FATHERS IN NICAEA. 
This is probably not in use among any of the Reformed. The 
term /Vicaean used in the formularies mentioned below, probably re- 


fers in every instance, or in nearly every instance, not to that, but 
to its Constantinopolitan expansion. 


236 
THE SYMBOL OF THE 150 HOLY FATHERS OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 


1. The signers of the French Confession ‘‘approve’’ ‘‘ the 
Nicaean’’ Symbol, as ‘‘in agreement with the written word of God.” 

2. The signers of the Belgic, or Holland Confession ‘‘gladly ve- 
ceive the Nicaean’’ Symbol. 


3. The signers of the Bohemian appeal to ‘‘ the agreement of the 
Nicaean Synod,” on the subject of the Trinity, as openly testifying 
‘the Catholic faith’’ on that subject. 

4. The Agreement of Sendomir affirms that ‘respecting God 
and the Holy Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, justification, 
and the chief heads of the Christian faith,’’ the Bohemian Confes- 
sion of the Waldenses contains nothing * * * which is not in 
accordance with Orthodox truth and with the pure Word of God. 
And it is on the Trinity that the Bohemian confession speaks of ‘‘ the 
agreement of the Nicaean Synod.’’ 

5. The Margrave, John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg, 
“confesses from his heart * * * the Nicaean’’ Symbol as among 
“216. Christian and Universal chief Symbols.”’ 


132 Chapter 77. 


6. ‘The signers of the Leipzig Colloquy ‘‘ confessed with mouth 
and heart * * * the Nicaean’’ Symbol. 

The signers of the Declaration of Thorn ‘“‘ profess that’’ they 
“embrace as a sure and undoubted interpretation of the Scriptures the 
Nicaean and the Constantinopolitan Symbol, in the very same words in 
which tt ts set forth in the third session of the Council of Trent, as that 
starting point in which all who profess Christ's faith, necessarily agree, 
and as the firm and only foundation, against which the gates of the 
infernal regions shall never prevail.”’ 


DIVISION II. 


LOCAL SYMBOLS. 
I. 
THE WESTERN OR ROMAN. 
This is, 
1. Approved by the French Confession; 
2. Gladly received by the Belgic or Holland; 
3. Zaught by the Bohemian; which is received, 


4. By the Agreement of Sendomir, and professed and adhered to 
by the Declaration of Thorn; 


5. Confessed by the Margrave’s ‘‘from his heart,’’ 

6. ‘‘ Confessed with mouth and heart’’ in the Leipzig Colloquy; 

7. Received by the Declaration of Thorn as containing ‘‘ What 
zs to be believed,’’ and is at the end of the Shorter Catechism [in 
the Westminister Confession of Faith, as] in the ‘‘ Confession of 
Faith’’ of ‘‘the Presbyterian Church in the United States of Amer- 
zca.”’ 

2: 


THE ATHANASIAN. 
This is, 
1. Approved by the French Confession as being ‘‘ 222 agreement 
with the written word of God,’’ 
2. Gladly received by the Belgic or Holland Confession; and 
3. Appealed to by the Bohemian Confession as openly testifying 


“ἐ the Catholic faith’’ on the ‘Trinity, which those who hold to that 
Confession ‘‘ feach.’’ Moreover, 


~ 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 133 


4. The Consent of Sendomir approves this Bohemian Confes- 
sion on the ground that it ‘‘admits nothing respecting God and the 
Hloly Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, justification, and 
the chief heads of the Christian faith, which is not in accordance 
with Orthodox truth and with the pure Word of God.’’? ‘he Athan- 
asian Creed may thus be said to be received by the Consent of Sen- 
domir. 


5. The Margrave ‘‘ confesses’? the Athanasian Symbol ‘‘/fvonz 
his heart.”’ 

6. The Leipzig Colloquy ‘‘ confessed with mouth and heart * * * 
the Athanasian’’ Symbol. 


7. The Declaration of Thorn acknowledges that with ‘‘ the Con- 
stantinopolitan Symbol,’ ‘‘agrees the Symbol which is called the 
Athanasian,’’ and it embraces ‘‘asa sure and undoubted interpreta- 
tion of the Scriptures the Nicaean and the Constantinoplitan Symbol, in 
the very same words in which it is set forth in the third session of 
the Council of Trent’’ [therefore with the words ‘‘ and the Son,’” 
and the other local innovations of the West] ‘‘as that starting point 
in which all who profess Christ's faith necessarily agree, and as the firne 
and only foundation against which the gates of the infernal regions 
shall never prevail.’ ‘This will serve to show how highly it esteems 
the doctrine of the Athanasian. 


One can see at the same time the lack of full information among 
those writers of some things that we know better now, and especially 
as to what form of the two Ecumenical Creeds should be held to, 
and that the Athanasian is a mere local Creed. Certainly every 
Protestant Christian, that is, every anti-idolatrous Christian, should 
prefer the form of the Ecumenical Creeds used in the Fourth and the 


other two Ecumenical Synods after it, to the altered form used at 
Trent. 


FULLER QUOTATIONS FROM CERTAIN CONFESSIONS OF THE REFORMED, OR 
OF PARTS OF THE REFORMED, ON THE TWO ECUMENICAL CREEDS, THAT 
IS ON THE SYMBOL, OF THE FIRST ECUMENICAI, COUNCIL, AND ON 
THAT OF THE SECOND: AND ON TWO LOCAL CREEDS, THAT 
S$, ON THE WESTERN CREED, WHICH IS COMMON- 
LY CALLED THE APOSTLES’, AND ON THE 
SO-CALLED ATHANASIAN, 


The quotations on the Apostles’ and the Athanasian are of little 
bearing or importance on the Six Ecumenical Councils, but we 


134 Chapter 71. 


retain them for the sake of fuller information on the topic of local 
Creeds, and to show how the Reformers of the sixteenth century and 
some later men regarded them, in an age, when, as yet, many or 
most in the Occident had not learned to distinguish between what is 
merely Western and of merely /ocal authority, and what is Ecumeni- 
eal, and of unzversal authority and obligation ; and so we shall find 
them jumbled together often in their Credal or Confessional Utter- 
ances. 


REFERENCES, same as under the Lutherans. 


Tis 
THE FRENCH CONFESSION. 


The Confession of faith of the French Churches exhibited to King 
Charles IX., in the year 1561, (92) has the following : 


ν. * * *& “We approve the three symbols, namely, the Apostolic, 
the Nicaean, and the Athanasian, because they are in agreement with 
the written word of God. 


VI. ‘The Holy Scripture teaches us that in that single and un- 
compounded divine essence exist three Persons, the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost. ‘The Father is the Cause, the First in Order, 
and the Originator of all things; but the Son is His Wisdom and 
Eternal Word; the Holy Ghost is His Virtue, Power, and Efficiency. 
The Son is eternally begotten out of the Father. The Holy Ghost 
proceeds eternally out of the Father and the Son. These three Per- 
sons are not confounded, but distinct ; not separated, but co-existent, 
co-eternal, and co-equal, Deuter. iv., 12; Matt. xxviii., 19; I. John 
ν., 7; Johni., 1, and xvii., 5, 10. Finally, ow this mystery we ap- 
prove what these four old Councils determined, and we detest all the 
sects condemned out of the Word of God by those ancient holy doc- 

‘tors, as, for instance, by Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril, Ambrose and by 
the rest.’’ (93). 


(92). See Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 110. 


(93). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 112: after proclaiming 
Scripture to be the sole rule by which everything should be tested, this French 
confession continues: V. * * * Quamobrem etiam TRIA ILLA SYMBOLA, NEMPE 
APposTOLICUM, NICAENUM, ET ATHANASIANUM IDCIRCO APPROBAMUS, QUOD 
SINT IL,L.A VERBO DEI SCRIPTO CONSENTANEA. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 135 


The work entitled Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum Fidet, pub- 
lished A. D. 1612 (94), thus speaks of this document : 


‘‘In the year 1559, in most difficult times, it was established in 
a National Synod at Paris. And, in the Colloquy of Poissy (Collc- 
quium Possiacum), held in the year 1561, Theodore Beza, in the 
name of the Churches of France, offered it to King Charles IX. It 
was confirmed in a National Synod, at Rochelle (Rupella), in the 
year 1571, when it was publicly read through in that illustrous as- 
sembly. For there, to three copies transcribed for her on parchment, 
subscribed with their own hands, the most serene Queen of Navarre, 
(Johanna) (95); her most serene son, Henry the Fourth and Great, 
afterwards King of France and Navarre, who is most worthy of happy 
and perpetual memory: also the most illustrious Prince of Conde, 
whose name was also Henry; by the most illustrious Count of 
Nassau (Nassovia) ; Gaspar Coligny of Chatillon (Gaspar Colinius 
Castilionius), Admiral of France; and in the name of the French 
Churches, the Pastors and elders, who had been sent to that National 
Synod from all the provinces of France. How great an assembly was 
that! How ornate was it in memorable piety, and in all most splen- 
did gifts, and how excellent in every kind of virtue. One of those 
autograph manuscripts, elegantly written on parchment, which the 
same most serene and illustrious persons, etc., subscribed, with their 
own hands, was sent by them to Geneva to be preserved, and it is 
kept in the archives of that city. It was published in Latin in the 
year 1566, and in the year 1581, (96). 


VI. ‘‘Haec sancta Scriptura nos docet, in illa singulari et simplici essentia 
‘divina subsistere tres personas, Patrem, Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Patrem 
videlicet primam ordine causam et originem rerum omnium: Filium autem 
ejus sapientiam et verbum aeternum: Spiritum Sanctum ejusdem virtutem, 
potentiam et efficaciam ; Filium ab aeterno ex Patre genitum. Spiritum Sanc- 
tum ab aeterno ex Patre et Filio procedentem : quae tres personae non sint con- 
fusae, sed distinctae, nec tamen seperatae, sed coessentiales, coaeternae, et co- 
aequales; Deuter. iv., 12; Matth. xxviii., 19; I. Joan v., 7; Joani., 1, et xvil., 
5, το. Denique IN HOC MYSTERIO APPROBAMUS, QUOD VETERA ILLA QUATUOR | 
CONCILIA DETERMINARUNT; et omnes Sectas a vetustis illis sanctis doctoribus, 
weluti Athanasio, Hilario, Cyrillo, Ambrosio, et ceteris, ex Deiverbo damnatus, 
detestamur.”’ 

(94). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 611. 


(95). The mother of Henry IV., the pious Jeanne d’ Albret. 
(96) Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 629. 


136 Chapter II. 


Z's 
THE BELGIC, THAT IS, HOLLAND CONFESSION. 


‘* The Christian and Orthodox Confession of the Belgic Churches, 
embracing the same doctrine concerning God and the eternal salvation 
of souls, as it was recognized and approved in the Synod of Dort, 
(Synodo Dordrechtana,’’) (97). 


This sets forth the following : 


‘This doctrine of the Trinity has always been asserted and. 
preserved in the true Church, from the age of the Apostles to this very 
day, against Jews, Mohammedans, and certain false Christians and 
heretics, as, for instance, Marcion, Manes, Praxeas, Sabellius, the 
Samosatene, Arius, and others like them, who have been condemned 
lawfully and deservedly by Orthodox Fathers. ‘Therefore in this. 
business we gladly receive the three Symbols, namely that of the 
Apostles, the Niczean, and that of Athanasius, and in like manner 
those things which have been established by the old Fathers, in 
accordance with the sentiment of those Symbols,’’ (98). 


This confession is thus described in Augustt : 


“ΑἹ first the manuscript was a private one, and was composed. 
in the French tongue by some Belgic Pastors, among whom Guido de 
Bres and Adrian Saravia (99) held the first place. It was then trans- 
lated into Dutch and Latin, and confirmed in various Synods in the 
years 1571, 1576, 1579 and 1581. ‘The additions and the changes. 


(97). See Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 170. 


(98). Id., p. 175. Atque haec sanétae Trinitatis doctrina, jam inde ab: 
apostolorum aetate, in hunc usque diem, in vera ecclesia semper asserta et. 
conservata fuit, adversus Judaeos, Mahumetanos, atque quosdam Pseudo- 
Christianos Haereticosque, utpote Marcionem, Manetem, Praxeam, Sabellium, 
Samosetanum, Arium et similes alios, qui jure meritoque, ab Orthodoxis Patribus. 
condemnati fuerunt. Idcirco in hoc negotio lubenter recipimus tria illa Symbola: 
_ Apostolorum scilicet, Nicaenum, et Athanasii, similiterque ea quae a veteribus. 
patribus juxta illorum Symbolorum sententiam statuta sunt. 


(99) Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 633. This Adrian 
Saravia I take it to be the Adrian Saravia who was the celebrated friend of 
Hooker. He held the dotrine of Apostolical succession exclusively in bishops, 
from the year 1564, when he lived at Ghent. This was only three years after 
the date of this Confession. He went over to the English Church thereafter. 
See concerning him the index under ‘‘ Saravia’’ in Keble’s Hooker. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 137 


which this Confession underwent up to the year 1618 are most accu- 
rately indicated and determined by Festus Hommius in the book 
entitled: Specimen Controversiarum Belgicarum, S. Confessio Eccles. 
Reform. in Belgio, in usum futurae Synodi Nationalis, Lugd. Bat., 
1618. 4. Atlength, after it had been revised and read again, it was 
ratified by a Synod in 1619. See the Acta Synod. Dordrac., P. I., 
pag. 350 seqq. Benthemii Holl. Kirchen. und Schulen-Staat, Th. 
I., c. 5. Jacob Revius translated it into Greek in 1623 and 1653,”’ 
(100). 
3 
THE BOHEMIAN CONFESSION. 


‘« Sum and grounds of the faith and dogmas which are taught in 
our Churches on Justification throughout the Kingdom of Bohemia 
and the Margravate of Moravia, and elsewhere, also by the Elders 
of our Profession, endowed in all things with the same mind. It 
was first offered and exhibited sincerely and frankly to His Royal 
Majesty, and then to all pious and candid readers,’’ (ror.) 


ARTICLE, II. 
ON THE CATECHISM. 

‘Hence they [that is, those who hold to this Confession] teach 
the Catechism, that is, this Catholic and Orthodox do¢trine of the 
Fathers; which is the Decalogue of God’s Commandments, and the 
Apostolic Faith, digested into twelve articles, and handed down in a 


Symbol, through the Niczean Synod, and so elsewhere confirmed and 
set forth. 


ARTICLE III. 
CONCERNING FAITH IN THE HOLY TRINITY. 


‘‘Besides they teach in their faith, that God is revealed in 
the Scriptures as one in the substance of his Divinity, but as trine 


(100). Ibid. 

(τοι). See Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 275. The King 
here referred to was Ferdinand of Austria. This is clear from the date. For on 
this page, 275, note, Augusti remarks: ‘Titulus Generalis in syntagmate est: 
““Confessio fidei ac religionis Baronum ac Nobilium Regni Bohemiae, Serenis- 
simo ac Invictissimo Romanorum, Bohemiae, etc. Regi, Viennae Austriae, sub. 
A. Ὁ. 1535 Oblata. Ex editione A. 1558. 4.” 


138 Chapter IT. 


in Persons, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In 
regard to the Persons they hold to a distinction between them, but 
in regard to existence and substance they hold that they are coequal 
and that there is no distinction to be made between them. And ¢hat 
this ἐς the Catholic faith, the agreement of the Nicaean Synod, and 
of others with it, their decrees, and their sanctions, and the Confes- 
sion or Symbol of Athanasius do openly testify;’’ (102). On this 
Confession Augusti remarks : 


‘The lovers of evangelical truth, who, after the slaughter of the 
Hussites, survived in Bohemia and Moravia, were called Bohemian 
Brethren and Moravians. ‘The terms Waldenses and Picards were 
applied to them, because many of those who, from old times, had 
lived in Bohemia, embraced the cause of the Hussites. But, as 
Comenius in his /7stor. Fratr. Bohem., 1702, § 50, 51, testifies, they 
prefer to call themselves Unity of the Brethren (Unitas Fratrum), 
that is, Brethren of Unity. These, therefore put forth the first Con- 
fession of their faith in the year 1504, which, however, had been pre- 
ceded by others, but different ones, from Flacius and Lydius, under 
the name of Waldenses. ‘They exhibited to King Ladislaus what is 
read in Lydiz Waldens. 5. ii., p. 1, seqq., and it was followed by new 
editions and apologies in the year 1507, 1508 and 1524. In the year 
1532 they sent a new Confession to George, Margrave of Brandenburg, 
who handed it over to Luther to publish it. That edition bears the 
title: Rechenschaft des Glaubens, der Dienst und Ceremonien der 
Brider in Boehmen und Mahren, welche von etlichen Pikarden, und 
von etlichen Waldenser genannt werden, Wittenb., 1532. ‘Three years 
after, the same person edited a New Confession of the Brethren, 
which, in the year 1535, they had offered to King Ferdinand, and 


(102). See Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 277-279: 


ARTICLE II. De Catechismo. Wine Catechismum docent, hoc est, Catholi- 
cam hane et Orthodoxam patrum do¢trinam: quae Decalogus est mandatorum 
Dei, et fides Apostolica, in duodecim articulos digesta, et tradita in Sybolo per 
Nicaenam Synodum, atque adeo alias confirmata et exposita. * * * * 


ARTICLE III. De fide Sanctae Trinitatis. Praeterea fide nosci Deum Scrip- 
turis docent, «2m in substantia divinitatis, /77num autem in personis, Patrem, 
Filium, et Spiritum Sanétum. Ex parte quidem personarum habere discrimen, 
ex parte vero essentiae ac substantiae coaequalitatem et indistinctionem. Id 
autem fides Catholica et Nicaenae Synodi, aliarumque cum hac idem consensus, 
decreta et sanctiones, Athanasit Confessio, seu Symbolum, aperte testantur. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 139 


besides, he decked it out with many remarks in a Preface. In these 
remarks he had the consent of Melancthon, Bucer, Calvin, and 
others. 


After new harassings and persecutions, which the brethren suf- 
fered in Bohemia in 1547 and 1548, many migrated into Poland and 
Prussia, where, on account of the remarkable moral discipline in 
which they excelled, they secured the applause of all, and especially 
of the Magnates and Nobles, and they lived in peace and concord with 
the Lutherans and the Reformed. ‘The reason why the brethren de- 
- sired to be joined in a closer bond with them ”’ [the Lutherans and the 
Reformed] ‘‘was not only the Roman Catholics, whose torch and 
trumpet for a long time was Hosius, the Cardinal, but more especial- 
ly the Socinians, that is, the Unitarians, who at that time had crept 
in among them under the name of Polish Brethren. The Lutherans, 
therefore, the Reformed, and the Bohemian Brethren, that is, the 
Waldenses, when about to make common cause in a triple compact 
against a common enemy, entered into an ecclesiastical union in a 
general Synod at Sendomir in 1570, and put forth that AGREEMENT 
oF SENDOMIR, which we have given, P. I. But inthis AGREEMENT 
our Confession is publicly recognized as a genuine declaration of 
evangelical doctrine, and as, in a certain sense, to be deemed equal 
to the Augsburg Confession,’’ (103). 


4. 
THE AGREEMENT OF SENDOMIR. 


The mutual agreement on points of the Christian religion between 
the Churches of Greater and Lesser Poland, of Lithuania, and Samo 
gitia, which Churches according to the Augustan [that is, the Augs- 
burgh] Confession, according to that of the Waldensian Brethren, as 
they are called, and, according to the Helvetic Confession, seemed in cer- 


tain respects to differ from each other. This agreement was made 
April 14, in the year 1570, in the Sendomir Synod. 


This Agreement approves the Bohemian, that is, Waldensian 
Confession from which we have just quoted. It affirms that it admits 
nothing respecting God and the Holy Trinity, the incarnation of the 
Son of God, justification, and the chief heads of the Christisn faith, 


NS ee 


(103). See Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 637-639. 


140 Chapter 71. 


which is not in accordance with Orthodox truth and with the pure 
Word of God, (104). 


5. 
THE MARGRAVE CONFESSION, OR CONFESSION OF JOHN SIGISMUND, 
ELECTOR OF BRANDENBURG. (105). 

“ΑἹ the beginning, and for the first, his Electoral Grace, con- 
fesses from his heart the true infallible and alone-saving Word of 
God, as the same is comprised in the Scriptures of the Holy Prophets 
and Apostles in the Holy Bible * * * in the next place [he 
confesses] the Christian and universal chief Symbols, as the Apostolic, 
the Athanasian, the Nicaean, the Ephesian, and Chalcedonian ; and 
that in them the articles of the Christian faith are briefly and plainly 
handled, and sufficiently proved and maintained out of Scripture 
against old and new heresies, (106). 


(104). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 254, 255: Visum est 
iisdem ecclesiis Polonicis Reformatis et Orthodoxis, quae in quibusdam capiti- 
bus et formulis do¢trinae (hostibus veritatis et Evangelii) minime consentire 
videbantur, pacis et concordiae studio, Synodum convocare, ac consensionem 
mutuam testari. Quare habita collatione amica et Christiana, sic junctis com- 
positisque animis consenserunt in haec capita. 

Primum. Quemadmodum et nos, qui in praesenti Synodo nostram confes- 
sionem edidimus, et fratres nunquam credidimus eos, qui dugustanam Confes- 
stonem amplectuntur, aliter quam pie et orthodoxe sensisse de Deo, et sacra 
Trinitate, atque incarnatione Filii Dei, et justificatione, aliisque praecipuis cap- 
itibus fidei nostrae: ita etiam ii, qui Augustanam Confessionem professi sunt 
candide et sincere, se vicissim tam de nostrarum ecclesiarum, quam de frat- 
rum, quos vocant Waldenses, confessione de Deo, et Sacra Triade, incarnatione 
Filii Dei, justificatione, et aliis primariis capitibus fidei Christianae, nihil agnos- 
cere, quod sit absonum ab orthodoxa veritate, et puro verbo Dei. Cf. Augusti id., 
p- 639, where speaking of this Consensum-Sendomiriensem, he remarks: In 
hoc autem Confessio nostro [That is the Bohemian Confession quoted by us. 
above] tanquam genuina dodtrinae evangelicae declaratio et Augustanae Confes- 
»sioni quodammodo aequiparanda publice agnoscitur. 

(105). See Augusti Corpus Librorum Symblicorum, p. 369. 

(106). Id., p. 371. Anfanglich und fiirs erste, bekennen sich Se. Churf. Gn, 
von Herzen zu dem wahren unfehlbaren und allein seligmachendem Wort 
Gottes, wie dasselbige in den Schriften der heiligen Propheten und apostol, in 
der heiligen Bibel verfasset * * * hernach auch zu den Christlichen und 
allgemeinen Hauptsymbolis, als dem apostolischen, Athanasianischen, Nicen- 
ischen, Ephesinischen, und Chalcedonischen, darinnen die artikel christlichen 
Glaubens, kurz und rund begriffen, und wider alte und neue Ketzereien aus der 
Schrift genugsam bewahret und behauptet sind. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 141 


On this Confession Augusti remarks: 


‘‘When John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg, in the year 
1613, went over to the side of the Reformed, in a Confession put forth 
in his own name in the year 1613 and 1614 (of which Pelargus, a 
theologian, of Frankfort, is held to have been the author), he set 
forth a new form of doctrine, and proposed it to his subjects, not as a 
norm, but asan example. But afterwards, the Margrave’s Confes- 
sion, Confessio Marchica, (for so they were accustomed to call it) 
was prescribed by public authority, together with the Leipzig Collu- 
quy in the year 1631, and the Declaration of Thorn in the year 1645, 
as a book by which all the teachers of the Reformed Church in the 
territories of Brandenburg and Prussia were to be bound, and this 
obligation continued until the year 1817. Compare the book en- 
titled: Der Chur Brandenburg Reformations-Werk: die drey confes- 
stones oder Glaubensbekenntnisse, welche in den churfiertl. Branden- 
burg. die Religion betreffenden Edictis zu beobachten befohlen worden ,; 
Coeln an der Spree, 1695, 4. From this authentic book flowed all 
the remaining editions, even that which is read in the appendix of 
D. H. Hering’s historische Nachricht von dem ersten Anfange der 
evang. reform. Kirche in Brandenburg und Preussen, Halle, 1778, 8; 
and which is repeated in other works. 


‘“‘Tnasmuch as the Margrave’s Confession and the Leipzig Colloquy 
are written in German, and inasmuch as no Latin version which can 
be maintained to be authentic, is known to us, we have deemed it 
our office to exhibit no other text than that which is genuine and 
original, as it is extant in Mylii Corp. Constitut. Marchicar., t. 1.”’ 


6. 
THE LEIPZIG COLLOQUY IN THE YEAR 1631. 


“ The Reformed and Lutheran Theologians who were there present 
arranged a settlement as to how far they agree and how far they do not,”’ 
(107): 

‘‘Tn conclusion they held that there is no better means for agree- 
ment on this point than that in those high mysteries they should 
abide by, those modes of speech alone, which are expressly 
employed in Holy Scriptures IN THE MOST ANCIENT ECU- 


(107). See Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 386. 


142 Chapter 77. 


MENICAL COUNCILS, and in the Augsburgh Confession, as they 
then, for their part, would bind themselves to no other expressions. 
This last the Saxon Electorate have left to be arranged on future and 
farther conference, and on more investigation; and so much of the 
third article was left, to which the theologians on both sides adhere 
so far as this, namely, that they from their hearts condemned and 
rejected all the errors of the old and new Arians, Nestorians, 
Eutychians, Monothelites, Marcionites, Photinians and whatever 
names they might still bear, and on the other hand confessed 
with mouth and heart the Apostolic, Nicaean and Athanasian 
Symbols,’’ (108). 


On this Augusti remarks: 


“(ΑἹ length, in the time of a most deadly war, Jo. George I., 
Elector of Saxony, George William, Elector of Brandenburg, and 
William, Prince of Hesse, and Landgrave, thought of restoring peace 
and concord to the Evangelical Church. Ina meeting held at Leip- 
zig in the year 1631, they commanded Theologians selected from both 
parties to hold a Colloquy on controverted articles, and to state in a 
public Declaration in what respects they could agree. This was 
done in our document, which was written in the vernacular tongue, 
in order that it might be of use to all, and it was subscribed with the 
names of those who took part in the Colloquy, and was published in 
the same year. If thou glancest at the effect of this Colloquy, thou 
shouldst grieve that it has been almost nothing, for it is evident, that 
a little after it, new dissensions and increased hatreds burst forth, 
but the value of this peace-favoring and love-producing writing is 
not lessened by that result. And the judgment which Henke 


(108). Id., p. 399: Schliesslich halten sie es dafiir, das kein besser Mittel 
zur Vergleichung in diesem Punkt sey, als, das man in diesem hohen Geheim- 
niss bey denen Redensarten allein, welche in der heiligen Schrift, in den uralten 
allgemeinen conciliis, und in der augsburgischen confession ausdricklich ge- 
braucht worden, verbleibe, wie sie denn ihres theils zu keinen andern Reden 
sich verbinden wollen. Welches letzere die Chur-Sachsische auf Kinftige fer- 
nere Unterredung und mehrere Ausfiihrung haben gestellet seyn lassen. Und 
so viel vom dritten Artikel; bey welchem beiderseits Theologi angehanget, dass 
sie von Herzen verdammten und verwiirfen alle Irrthiimer der alten und neuen 
Arianer, Nestorianer, Eutychianer, Monotheliten, Marcioniten, Photinianer, 
und wie sie immer Namen haben mochten dargegen sich zum Apostolischen, 
Nicenischen, Athanasischen Symbolen mit Mund und Herzen bekennen thaten. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 143 


(Gesch. der Chr. Kirche, Th. III. p. 309) has given concerning it is 
very true, (109). 
DECLARATION OF THORN. 


‘\4 General Profession of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches in 
the Kingdom of Poland, in the Grand Dukedom of Lithuania, and in 
the Provinces adjoining the Kingdom, exhibited on the first day of Sep- 
tember, in the meeting which was held at Thorn for the purpose of 
maturing a settlement of controversies,’’ (110). 


After a profession of faith in ‘‘ the Holy Canonical Scriptures of 
the Old and the New Testament,’’ as being ‘‘alone, the rule of faith 
and worship,’’ (111), this Declaration goes on: 


‘‘And a sort of compend of these Scriptures, so far as what is to be 
believed is concerned, is contained in the Apostolic Symbol, in which 
we were baptized; so far as what is to be done is concerned, in the 
Decalogue, the sum of which consists in love to God and to one’s 
neighbor; so far as what is to be sought after and hoped for, in the 
Lord’s Prayer. All of which things areconfirmed by our Lord Jesus 
Christ both in the institution of baptism, as the sacrament of initia- 
tion or regeneration, and in the Holy Eucharist as the sacrament of 
our spiritual nutrition. 


Under these heads, therefore, we deem the sum of saving doctrine 
to exist; for the propagation and preservation of which doctrine in 
the Church our Lord established the holy Ministry for preaching the 
Gospel and for administering the Sacraments, and armed them with 


the spiritual power of the keys against unbelievere and the diso- 
bedient. 


(109). Augnsti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 641, 642. On page 642, 
in a note to the last sentence above, he adds the passage from Henke te which 
he refers: ‘‘ Appeneuda censemus ejus verba, quae etiam nostris diebus dicta 
sunto: Noch nie war mit solcher Klugheit und Mafsigung, noch nie mit so 
gunstigem Scheine des gewisserten Erfolgs, die aussdhnung beider 
protest. Kirchen uid das Ende jener, von ihren Feinden mit Freunde 
und Hohn bemerkten, mit List und Gliick unterhaltenen Streitigkeiten 
vorbereitet worden. So wenig auch die Fiirsten, welche diese Abrede schlossen, 
andem protestant. Regenten oder Gemeinheiten vergreifen oder vorschreiben 
wollten, so diente doch dieser ihr Versuch, bey ihrem Ansehn, zum nachahm- 
lichen Beyspiele wie Nachbarn bei drohender Feuersbrunst ihre sonst Kleinen 
Streitigkeiten vergessen und die gemeinschaftliche Gefahr bedenken mussten. 


(110), Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 411. 
(111). Ibid. 


144 Chapter 71. 


But if any doubt or controversy arises regarding the genuine sense 
of these heads of Christian Doctrine, we hereby profess, moreover, that 
we embrace as a sure and undoubted interpretation of the Scriptures the 
Nicaean and the Constantinopolitan Symbol, in the very same words in 
which tt ἐς set forth in the third session of the Council of Trent, as that 
starting point in which all who profess Christ’ s faith necessarily agree, and 
as the firm and only foundation against which the gates of the infernal 
regions shall never prevail. 


And we acknowledge that with this Symbol agrees the Symbol 
which ts called the Athanasian, and, moreover, the confessions of the First 
Synod of Ephesus, and of the Synod of Chalcedon, and, moreover, those 
which the Fifth Synod and the Sixth Synod opposed to the relics of the 
Nestorians and of the Eutychians; and, moreover, what the Synod of 
Milevis and the Second of Orange formerly taught from the Scrip- 
tures against the Pelagians; and, besides, whatever from the very 
times of the Apostles and thereafter with unanimous and notorious 
consent, the primitive Church believed and taught as a necessary article 
of faith, the same, we also, from the Scriptures profess both to believe 
and to teach. 


By this Profession of our faith, therefore, we, as being truly Cath- 
olic Christians, hereby separate ourselves and our churches from all old 
and recent Heresies, which the ancient Universal Church with unaut- 
mous consent, from the Scriptures rejected and condemned,’’ (112). 


(112). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 411: Profitemur itaque 
imprimis quidem, nos amplecti sacras canonicas Veteris et Novi Testamenti 
Scripturas, in Veteri, Hebraea, in Novo, Graeca lingua, a Prophetis et Apostolis, 
instinctu Spiritus Sancti primitus scriptas, quas solas fidet et cultus nostri regu- 
lam perfectam esse agnoscimus: in quibus aperte posita inveniuntur illa omnia, 
quae ad salutem omnibus sunt necessaria, seu, ut b. Augustinus loquitur, quae 
continent fidem, moresque vivendi, spem scilicet et caritatem. 

Quarum etiam velut Compendium quoddam, quoad credenda, Symbolo 
Apostolico, in quod omnes baptizati sumus; quoad facienda, Decalogo, cujus 
summa consistit in dilectione Dei et proximi; quoad petenda et speranda 
Oratione Dominica continetur. Quae et ipsa a Domino nostro Jesu Christo, in- 
stitutione tum Baptismi, ceu sacramenti initiationis sive regenerationis tum 5S. 
Eucharistiae, ceu sacramenti nutritionis spiritualis confirmata sunt. 

In his ergo capitibus summam doétrinae salvificae consistere censemus; cui 
in ecclesia propagandae et conservandae, sacrum etiam evangelii praedicandi et 
sacramentorum administrandorum Ministerium Dominus Noster instituit, et po- 
testate clavium spirituali adversus incredulos et immorigeros, armavit. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 145 


They add further, below, that on the controversies which at the 
Reformation separated the Western Church, they approve, among 
other confessions, the Bohemian. ‘This we have quoted above, (113). 


On this Declaration, Augusti, after speaking of the unsuccessful 
result of the Leipzig Colloquy, remarks as follows: 


‘‘Almost the same holds true of that loving Colloquy which was 
held in the year 1645 at Thorn under the auspices of Uladislaus IV., 
King of Poland, between Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed Theolo- 
gians. ‘The counsel of a very good King was fruitless, and greater 
discord burst forth. ‘The reception of the Declaration of Thorn as a 
new Symbol by the Reformed Church in the territories of Branden- 
burg was the only fruit that remained. Cf. Hofmanni //zst. “it. 
Colloquit Charatave Thorun. et Heringii Beytr. zur Gesch. der reform. 
ΠΟ ΘΠ ἘἾ Uhl Ὁ το, ἘΠ. Ds) p55, βασι 

There sentiments for the most part are orthodox and noble. 
The regard for the /i/iogue is among the things to be regretted. 


Moreover, certain blunders mar some of these documents. ‘The 
following may be noted: 


I. The statement in the Bohemian Confession that ‘‘the apostolic 
faith digested into twelve articles,’’ had been ‘‘handed down in ὦ 


Si quid vero in hisce do¢trinae Christianae capitibus dubitationis aut contro- 
versiae de genuino eorum sensu exoriatur, profitemur porro, nos amplecti ceu 
interpretationem Scripturarum certam et indubitatam, Symbolum Nicaenum et 
Constantinopolitanum, iisdem plane verbis, quibus in Synodi Tridentinae Ses- 
sione tertia, tanquam principium illud, in quo omnes qui fidem Christi profiten- 
tur, necessario conveniunt, et fundamentum firmum et unicum, contra quod 
portae inferorum nunquam praevalebunt, proponitur. 

Cui etiam consonare Symbolum, quod dicitur Athanasianum, agnoscimus : 
nec non Ephesinae primae, et Chalcedonensis Synodi Confessiones: quinetiam, 
quae guinta et sexta Synodi, Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum reliquiis oppo- 
suere: quaeque adyersus Pelagianos olim Milevitana Synodus et Arausicana 
secunda ex Scripturis docuere. Quinimo, quicquid primitiva ecclesia ab ipsis 
usque Apostolorum temporibus, unanimi deinceps et notorio consensu tamquam 
articulum fidei necessarium credidit, docuit, idem nos quoque ex Scripturis 
credere et docere profitemur. 

Hac igitur fidei nostrae professione, tanquam Christiani vere Catholici ab 
omnibus veteribus et recentibus Haeresibus, quas prisca Universalis Ecclesia un- 
animi consensu ex Scripturis rejecit atque damnavit, nos nostrasque ecclesias 


segregamus,”’ Νὰ 
(ra) lds p, 413. 


146 Chapter IT. 


symbol through the Nicaean Synod.’ If by this is meant as one might 
understand, that the Western Creed called the Apostles’ had been 
digested into twelve articles before that Synod, and that z# had been 
handed down through that Council the mistake is a bad one. For the 
Acts of the Council make no mention of it: and when Rufinus first 
mentions the Western Creed, about A. D. 390, it lacked the twelfth 
article, and besides was not so full in other articles as it has been 
made since. But I have shown the baselessness of such notions. 
more fully in writings on the Creeds which, if God gives me the 
means, I hope to publish. 


It is very much to be regretted that vast multitudes of the Con- 
tinental Reformed have swerved from these productions of some of 
the ablest theologians they have ever had, into some of the forms of 
Arianism or infidelity, and that in the British Dominions and in the 
United States, they have turned aside into later and more unlearned 
and unscriptural notions. In English-speaking Christendom what- 
ever of orthodox learning there may be on these points is deluged and 
swamped in the flood of popular ignorance which rules those bodies: 
and so some in them make mere feeling without baptism to be regen- 
eration; deny a hell, deny the Trinity, deny baptism for the remiss- 
ion of sins, and other fundamentals. With regard to his work, Au- 
gusti remarks appositely to the lamentable position of the European 
Reformed: 


‘Thou hast here, therefore, kindly reader, a new collection of the 
Symbolic Books of the Reformed Church, which is not only increased 
by our care, of whatsoever sort that be, but even a little more cor- 
rect, and disposed in better order. * * * It has been our task so 
far asit may be done, to assist the desire of those who wish to draw the 
doctrine of the Reformed from sources which are known to very few: 
and we do not doubt that those judges, who are just in these matters 
will deem our edition adapted to this purpose. This only however 
we foresee, namely, that those Genevan Pastors, who, in a writing 
lately published, set forth a Suppression of Belief in Confessions, (per- 
chance, forsooth, as a propitiatory offering to Servetus in the very 
place of his punishment,) will be sharply incensed at us. For if they 
bore with pain and difficulty the repetition of the Helvetic Confession 
put forth anew by two of their own colleagues, how much more angry 
will they be with us for putting forth the whole body of Confessions! 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 147 


= ESB OSU Te en ὁ τὴν 


But, although, from our heart we grieve over it, we can have noth- 
ing in common with anti-creed Pastors and Theologians, (who, be- 
sides those of Geneva, seem to have, here and there, brethren and 
comrades), until they change their minds; and nothing remains for 
us except to endure their attacks with composure, and to suffer it 
patiently, whether they wish to call us Athanasians, or Mummers, 
or by any other invidious name whatever,’”’ (114). 


In a note he adds: ‘In a work put forth by public authority, 
entitled a Discourse pronounced at the Consistory of the Church of 
Geneva, January 14, 1819, by M. de Ferney, Pastor, Geneva and 
Paris, Paschoud, 18ro, 8, Ρ. 20, are read these words, namely: 


“The suppression of Confessions of Faith is then, I am sure, the 
most proper means of bringing together individuals and Churches, 
and when these shall be animated by a sincere love of peace, nothing 


will hinder them from stretching out the hand οἱ fellowship, and from 
causing the disappearance of all sects!’ 


““Add the work entitled, Histoire veritable des Momiers de 
Genéve etc. Paris, 1824, 8, p. 76, seqq,”’ (1 15). 

That would assuredly be a happy family in which one would 
hold firmly to the doctrine of the Trinity as vastly and essentially 
important, and another should hold it in utter abhorrence; in which 
one should profess as articles of saving faith the doctrine of Christ’s. 
divinity and of his atonement and another should deny both, and 
deem the divine Redeemer a mere creature and the worship of Him 
but idolatry, εἰς! Common sense and experience teach that secs 
without Confessions, as, for instance, the Antipaedobaptist sects of 
England and the new world, divide readily when they differ, into 
hostile camps. The following varieties of this one Particular class 
exist in the United States alone: 


Regular or Calvinistic Baptists. 

Freewill Baptists. 

Six Principle Baptists. 

Campbellites. 

Seventh Day Baptists, single immersionists. 
Winebrennarians. 

Mennonites. 


TAM eoe vy 


(114). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 649. 
(115). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 650. 


148 Chapter 77. 


τον ΝΕ ον πὴ πε πὸ ae 


8. Reformed Mennonites. 

g. Tunkers, First Day. 

το. Tunkers, Seventh Day. 

11. Anti-Mission Baptists. 

12. River Brethren, and at least one or two others. 


As to the points on which this happy family squabble, and those 
on which they agree, we can waste no time. Hach one of them is 
perfectly sure that it is right and that the others are wrong. The 
Regular Baptist baptizes the Mennonite because he has no valid bap- 
tism, for the Mennonite ordinarily sprinkles or pours; and the Tunker 
baptizes the Calvinistic Baptist because the Calvinistic Baptist and 
the other single-immersion sects are not immersed thrice. These 
are only a few of the varieties. Will not a satirical man say, 
the conflict of ideas in these sects is of the same affectionate and lov- 
ing kind for which Kilkenny cats are noted when they fairly get at 
each other? Will not the satirist say, Down with all barriers to fatal 
and soul-destroying error, then? Let the wolf come into the fold! 
Let anarchy reign! Let the flock of Christ be scattered and made 
the laughing-stock of His enemies, of Pagan and Jew and Mohamme- 
dan! Let it be destroyed! Down withcreeds! Is this superlatively 
sensible, and well pleasing to Christ and beneficial to His religion? 
Hurrah for cant and twaddle and humbug! 


NEVIN (ONE OF THE REFORMED) IN FAVOR OF CREEDS. 


John W. Nevin, D. D. German Reformed, in the Mercersburg Re- 
view for Nov., 1852, pp. 606-620, has an article which, although de- 
fective in certain points of learning, is in the main deserving of respect, 
if much of what he has said of the so-called Apostles’ Creed be asserted 
of the Nicene Symbol and the Constantinopolitan, and of Primi- 
tive Tradition. But he errs in teaching that the so-called Apostles’ 
Creed was the Norm of Ecumenical do¢trine in the Ante-Nicene or any 
other period when the Universal Church was undivided. But the 
Historic Tradition, that is what was held ‘“‘everywhere, always and 
by all’”’ from the first, was a guide in defining on doctrine, discipline, 
rite and custom. What we propose to quote from him is directed 
against the patrons of “‘the Anti-Creed heresy’’ as he terms it, who un- 
dervalue the importance of doétrinal symbol, in interpreting the Holy 
Scriptures. He writes: ‘ 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils, 149 


‘‘ There is no such thing in truth as this sort of unsymbolical inde- 
pendence in the interpretation of the Bible ; and those who promise 
liberty in this way, only bring in always a real bondage of Spirit in 
the room of the lawful and just authority they dare to set aside. No: 
man reads the Bible without a theological habit of some sort, (ever 
if it be that of a Voltaire or Paine only) which goes to determine for 
him the sense of its words. Every sect hasits Symbol, its tradition, 
written or unwritten, generally both, for the most part poor, harsh 
hard, and dead, under whose iron yoke is sung the melancholy song 
of freedom all the day long. Of all conceivable forms of spiritual 
vassalage, the most dismal surely is to be estranged from the Ecu- 
menical faith, the Catholic Creed, of God’s Church as it has stood 
from the beginning, and to be adopted into the glorious liberty of 
some paltry sect, which has manufactured a new edition of Chris- 
tianity for its own use, fresh from the mint of the Bible, in the most 
approved Puritan style, and now requires you, on pain of sore heresy, 
if not actual perdition, to read the Bible and do up all your religious 
thinking in this same fashion precisely, and no other. for our part, 
we think it infinitely more safe, as well as vastly more respectable, to 
take the sense of the inspired volume, with such men as Irenaeus, Cyp- 
vian, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Augustine, and the ancient fathers 
generally, from the standpoint of the old Ecumenical Councils and Creeds, 
than to sit for the same purpose at the feet of any modern sect whatever, 
presuming to set up any new scheme of faith, zof rooted in the Apostles’ 
Creed [he should have said ‘‘ Ecumenical ’’ instead of ‘‘ Apostles’,’’ J. 
C.] as a better and surer version of what the Scriptures actually 
mean.”’ 

DIVISION III. 


QUOTATIONS FROM CONFESSIONS OF THE REFORMED, ON THE SIX 
ECUMENICAL SYNODS, AND ON THE RECEPTION OF THEIR 
NORMS OF DEFINITION ON THE TWO ECUMENICAL 
CREEDS, THAT IS, ON THAT OF THE FIRST ECU- 

MENICAL SYNOD AND ON THAT OF 
THE SECOND. 

A HELVETIC CONFESSION. 


‘A brief and simple Confession and Exhibition of sincere Christian 
Faith,” (176). 


(116). See Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 3. 


150 Chapter IT. 


᾿ς 


This is the first of the Helvetic Confessions in Augusti’s Corpus 
Librorum Symbolicorum. 


This recognizes the importance of maintaining discipline among 
ministers, by means of Synods, and the right to lead back into the 
way of truth any of them who may have erred, if they can be healed, 
or of deposing them if they are incurable ; and then adds : 


‘* Nor do we disapprove Ecumenical Councils, if, in accordance 
with apostolic example, they be celebrated for the safety of the 
Church, and not for its ruin,’’ (117). 


Of this Confession, Butler, in his Confessions of Faith, remarks: 


‘“Tt was composed in 1566, by Bullinger, under the particular 
direction of the Elector Palatine. Some writers have asserted that 
the Elector was its real author. With the exception of Basle, it was 
adopted by all the Helvetic and Rhaetian cities, which had embraced 
the Reformation. The divines of Basle refused to sign it, not be- 
cause they objected to the doctrine which it contained; but because, 
in their opinion, their previous subscription of their own creed, in 
1530, rendered it unnecessary. It is greatly esteemed by all the Re- 
formed Churches, and is particularly curious, from its generally ex- 
pressing the Zuinglian creed, before it was newly modelled by 
Calvin,’’ (118). 

But Angusti gives a different date and a somewhat fuller account, 
for he writes that 


“ΤῊ the year 1566 it was revised and corrected zz the name and 
by the authority of all the Helvetic Churches, except Basle and Neuf- 
chatel (excepta Basiliensi et Neocomensi) and approved by the Re- 


(117). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 64, 65: Scimus, sacra- 
menta ex institutione et per verbum Christi san¢tificari, et efficacia esse piis, 
tametsi offerantur ab indignis ministris. De qua re ex Scripturis multa contra 
Donatistas disputavit beatus Dei servus Augustinus. 

Atqui debet interim justa esse inter ministros disciplina. Inquirendum 
enim diligenter in dod¢trinam et vitam ministrorum, in Synodis. Corripiendi 
sunt peccantes a senioribus, et in viam reducendi, si sunt sanabiles, aut depo- 
nendi et velut lupi abigendi sunt per veros pastores a grege dominico, si sunt in- 
curabiles. Si enim sint pseudodoctores, minime ferendi sunt. Neque vero et 
oecumenica improbamus concilia, si ad exemplum celebrentur apostolicum, ad 
ecclesiae salutem, non perniciem. 


(118). Butler’s Confessions of Faith, ed. London, 1816, p. 41. \ 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 151 


formed Churches in England, Scotland, France, Belgium, Poland, 
Hungary and Germany. It was first written at a gathering at Basle 
in the year 1536, by a triumvirate selected for this business, Henry 
Bullinger, Oswald Myconius, and Simon Grynaeus, with the special 
design of promoting good feeling and concord with the adherents of 
the Augsburgh Confession. But afterwards, when it was seen that this 
did not come to pass as had been desired, and that this Confession 
was disapproved by many as not sufficient, at the persuasion of Fred- 
eric III., especially, the Elector Paiatine, it was worked up intoa 
much increased and much more elaborate form. In this business 
Henry Bullinger, Theodore Beza, and Rudolph Gualterus, had the 
chief parts. Compare Rud. Hospiniani Corcordia Discors. Tigur. 
1607 f. p. 92, 104, seqq. Ejusdem Azstor. Sacrament. P. ΤΠ p. 
6; Ξε], Ρ' 228, p-504, seqq., (119). 

A fuller account of it isin the Philadelphia translation of Her- 
zog’s Theological and Ecclesiastical Encyclopaedia, article elvetic 
Confessions. 

This article remarks that ‘‘ ¢he Confession [in German], also the 
improved Latin edition, was finally adopted and subscribed as the com- 
mon confession of the Swiss Churches.’ 

The Preface to it is in Augusti’s Corpus Libror., Symbol, p. 623, 
seq., and, to one curious in such matters, it repays perusal. 


THE SCOTCH CONFESSION. 


“ The Scotch Confession of Faith. The Orders of the Kingdom of 
Scotland and allin this realm, professing Christ Jesus and His Holy 
Gospel, for their own countrymen and for other Kingdoms and Nations, 
professing together with themselves the same Christ Jesus, pray grace, 
mercy and peace from God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, with 
the Spirit of right judgment and salvation. 


ARTICLE XxX. 


ON GENERAL COUNCILS—THEIR POWER, THEIR AUTHORITY, AND 
THE CAUSES OF THEIR ASSEMBLING. 


‘“As we do not rashly condemn that, which pious men, legitimately 
assembledin General Council have set forth to us, so, on the other hand, 


(119). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 622. 


152 Chapter IT. 


we donot admit whatever, without just examination, ts thrust on men, 
in the name of a General Council, (120). For it is manifest, that in- 
asmuch as they were men, for that reason certain of them have mani- 
festly erred, and that too in matters of the greatest weight and mo- 
ment. So far, therefore, as a Council proves the sentence and com- 
mand which it gives, by the plain Word of God, so far do we at once 
reverence and embrace it. But if any persons pretend, in the name 
of a Council, to coin new articles of our faith, or to make constitu- 
tions repugnant to the Word of God, notwithstanding it behooves us. 
to reject utterly as doctrines of devils all that calls away our souls. 
from the voice of our God alone to follow the do¢trines and constitu- 
tions of men, I. Tim. iv., 1. ‘The reason, therefore, why General 
Councils came together was not that they might make any law per-. 
petual which had not already been enacted by God, nor that they 
might fabricate new articles of our faith, or that they might confer 
any authority on the Word of God, much less that they might make 
that to be the Word of God or that to be its true interpretation which 
had not before been His holy will, expressed in His Word. But the 
reason why Councils assembled (for we speak of those which deserve 
the name of Councils) was partly for the refutation of heresies, and to 
give a public confession of faith to posterity, for it to follow, both 
which things they did from the authority of the written Word of God, 
and that too without holding the opinion of their possessing any such 
prerogative, as because they were in a General Council, therefore 
they could not err. This, in our judgment, was the first and princi- 
pal reason for General Councils. Another was for the establishment 
and observance of good government in the Church, in which, as being 
God’s House, it is fit that all things be done decently and in order ; 
not, however, that we judge that the same government in every 
thing, and just the same order of ceremonies in every respect can be 
established for all ages, times and places. For inasmuch as cere- 
monies invented by men are only temporary, therefore they can be 
and they ought to be changed when their use is found to suffer or to: 
foster superstition rather than to edify the Church of God,’’ (121). 


(120). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 160, Art. XX. De 
Concilits generalibus, eorum potestate, anétoritate, et causis, cur conveniuut. — 

Quemadmodum non temere damnamus illud, quod viri pii, congregati in 
generali concilio legitime convocato, nobis proposuerunt; ita sine justo examine 
non admittimus quicquid hominibus, generalis concilii nomine, obtruditur. 


(121). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 160-162. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 153: 


This contains some things which are excellent and some things. 
which need limiting. The General Councils here faulted were 
probably the local Synods of the whole West which after the separa- 
tion of West and East were termed General, in the West. The Second 
of Nicaea, the so-called Seventh Ecumenical Synod, would be 
included. 

In Article XVIII., this Confession states: 


‘Tf therefore an interpretation, determination, or sentence of any 
doctor of the Church or of a Council is repugnant to the express. 
word of God, in any other place of Scripture, it is certain that that 
interpretation is not the mind and sense of the Holy Spirit, although 
Councils, Kingdoms, and Nations may have admitted and approved 
it. For we dare not admit any interpretation which is repugnant to 
any chief article of faith, or to any plain text of Scripture or rule 
oblovers 22): 


On this confession Augusti remarks: 


‘The statement in the Syntagma that ‘zt was written in the year 
1568 in the Scotch language alone’ is false. ‘That this statement 15. 
not a typographical error is clear from what follows: /¢ was first 
published in the year one thousand five hundred and sixty-eight. But 
it is certain that it was hastily written in a full session of the Edin- 
burgh Parliament (for a space of only four days was allowed) and it 
was there exhibited and confirmed. Cf. Stuarti Gesch. der Reformat. 
in Scotland, p. 225, seqq. et Schroekhii Kirchengesch. seit d. Re- 
format. Th. II., p. 478 seqq. John Knox is reputed to have been 
its chief author. 


‘What is exhibited in the Syntagma, p. 126-128, namely, ‘ Zhe 
General Confession of the true and Christian Faith and Religion, accord- 
ing to the word of God and the acts of our Parliaments, which his Royad 
Majesty and his family and various others have subscribed for the glory 

of God, and as a good example to all. At Edinburgh, on the 28th day 
of January A. D., 1581, and in the fourteenth year of His Royal 
Maesty’s reign,’ is nothing else at all but a new confirmation and 
commendation of the Scotch Confession. The Scots solemnly declare 
that they will firmly adhere to the Confession publicly confirmed, in 
all its articles, and that they will manfully defend it against Popery, 


(i22)5, Id... ps 160, 


154 Chapter IT. 
ia 


and especially against the erroneous and bloody decrees of the 
Council of Trent. A little after this is added: ‘Wetherefore * * * 
protest, and call the searcher of hearts and reins to witness, that our 
minds and hearts do plainly assent to this Confession, promise, oath 
and subscription,’ etc. 

‘‘ Although such great praise had been lavished upon this Confes- 
sion; and although it had thus been exalted so high, nevertheless, a 
little while after, it was receded from, and a new Confession of the 
Presbyterians, composed in the year 1643 and 1646, succeeded to its 
place. This last has the following title: ‘ Confession of Faith elabor- 
ated in an Assembly of Divines, convoked by the authority of the English 
Parliament, and afterwards exhibited to the same Parliament, and 
moreover recognized and approved by the same, and thereafter by the 
Scotch Kirk, together with the double Catechism. Cambridge 1559 
[1649?]’ And this prevails among the Reformed in England and 
Scotland even at this day, but not, however, in such a sense as wholly 
to take away all symbolic authority from that which has been men- 
tioned above,’’ (123). 


THE TETRAPOLITAN CONFESSION. 


‘The Confession of the four cities of Strasburg, Constance, Memmin- 
gen and Lindau, in which they set forth their faith to His Most Sacred 
Cesarean Majesty, at the Augsburgh Gathering,’’ (124). 

This mentions as ‘‘in agreement with Christ’s Doctrine’ * * * 
“what the Church of Christ has hitherto believed regarding the most 
Holy Trinity, namely, that God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit 
are one in substance, and it admits no other distin@tion between them 
than that of Persons. Moreover, the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ 
was made very God and very Man, but the Natures in Him were not 
mixed together, but they were so united in the same person that 
they are never to be separated,’’ (125). 


(123) Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 632. 

(124). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 327. 

(125). Id., p. 330: Cap. 11., De Sacrosancto Trinitate, mysteriogue incarnati 
Christi. 

Ex hac igitur cum sacrae apud nos conciones ducerentur, ablegatis perni- 
ciosis contentionibus, ii mox quibus aliquod pietatis studium erat, Christi doc- 
trinam et certius consequuti sunt, et vita exprimere ferventius coeperunt, sicut 
revocati ab iis, quae dogmatis Christi mala assuta sunt, ita in iis confirmati 


* 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 155 


But this language respecting the faith ‘‘believed’’ by ‘‘ the 
Church of Christ hitherto’’ must have reference to what the Western 
Church had received up to the Reformation on these subjects. And 
we know that all the West received the faith of the Six Ecumenical 
Synods on these points. Indeed in them alone were they defined. 
For the first two defined the doctrine of the Trinity, and the last four 
defined respecting the doctrine of the two Natures in Christ, etc. 


This Confession adds : 


‘* Since on these points we vary in no respect from the Fathers, nor 
Srom the common consent of Christians, we believe that it will suffice 
for us in this manner to testify our faith,’’ (126). 


Constantine assembled the Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea, Theo- 
dosius the Elder that of I. Constantinople, the Second World-Synod. 
‘This Confession thus alludes to these monarchs : 


‘“ Therefore let thy Most Holy Majesty prefer to follow the ex- 
amples of those most powerful and truly happy Cesars, Constantine, 
Jovian, Theodosius, and others like them, who, presenting 
every doctrine with mildness daily through most holy and most vigi- 
lant Bishops, and by properly assembling Councils, and by grave dis- 
cussion of all things, dealt with the erring ones, and tried every 
means to recall them into the way before they enacted anything 
more severe against them,’’ (127) etc. 


quae illis exsistunt consentanea. Inter quae illa sunt, quae Christi ecclesia de 
sacrosan¢ta Triade hactenus credidit, nempe unum esse substantia Deum, Pat- 
rem, Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, nec ullam quam personarum discrimen reci- 
pere. Servatorem quoque nostrum Jesum Christum, eundem verum Deum, etiam 
vernm hominem factum, uaturis quidem impermixtis, at ita in eadem persona 
unitis ut in omnia secula nunquam rursus solvantur. * * * In his quoniam 
nihil a Patribus, nihil a communi* Christianorum consensu variamus, satis fore 
credimus, hunc in modum nos fidem nostram esse testatos. 

(126). Ibid. 

(127). See Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 365: Malit itaque S. 
M. T. exempla sequi potentissimorum et vere felicium Caesarum, Constantini, 
Joviniani, Theodosii, et similium, qui doctrina omni cum mansuetudine quo- 
tidie per sanc¢tiss. et vigilantiss. Episcopos impartita, tum conciliis rite coactis, 
gravique cmnifiim rerum discussione, cum errantibus agere, tentareque omnia, 
ut in viam eos revocarent, prius quam severius quicquam in eos statuerent, quam 
eorum quibus constat fuisse consultores, et priscis illis vereque sanctis patribus 
dissimillimos, et eventum quoque contigisse pietati illorum parum respond- 
entem. a 


156 Chapter 77. 


Then they complain of the Council of Constance, which was not 
Ecumenical but only Western, and therefore local. 


Below complaint is made of the disrespect shown former Coun- 
cils, and they pray the Emperor not to regard the Council of Con- 
Stance, ‘‘especially since he may see that of unnumbered decrees not less 
holy than necessary of former Councils not even a hair is observed by 
Lclesiastics, and so every thing had degenerated among them to such an 
extent that there ts no one endowed with even common sense, who does 
not exclaim that a council is needed to restore religion, and the sanctity 
of the ecclesiastical order,’’ (128). 


THE LEIPZIG COLLOQUY. 


This has a thoroughly Orthodox passage against the Nestorian 
heresy, which tells well for the learning of its composers. The 
theologians of the Electorate of Brandenburg and of the Princedom 
of Hesse, say as follows: 


“ They uncontradictingly believe, not less than the Saxon Electorate, 
that God the Son became very man, born out of the Virgin Mary, who 
before, in, and after her delivery remained a true virgin, and she was 
not only a Man-bearer, and not only Χριστοτόχος or a Christ-bearer, but 
im the true sense a θεοτόχος, God-bearer,’’? (129). 


THE DECLARATION OF THORN. 


The signers of this Declaration ‘‘ acknowledge’ the faith of the 
first six Ecumenical Synods, at least what of them is outside of some 
Canons of those Councils, for they state: 


(128). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 366: Hinc S. M. T., re4 
vocare se illud ne patiatur, quod pleraque, de quibus nunc disceptatur, decisa’ 
sunt olim, et praecipue in Concilio Constarmtiensi, maxime cum videat ex innu- 
meris, non minus sanctis quam necessariis superiorum conciliorum decretis, ne 
pilum quidem ab Ecclesiasticis servari, sicque degenerasse apud eos omnia, ut 
nemo vel communi sensu praeditus, non clamet, concilio ad restituendam reli+ 
gionem, ecclesiasticique ordinis sanctimoniam, opus esse. 


(129). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 391. Denn sie [die 
Chur. Brandenburgische und Fiirstliche Hessische] nicht weniger als die Chur 
Sachsische unwidersprechlich glaubeten, Gott der Sohn sey wahrer Mensch 
geworden, geboren aus der Jungfrauen Maria, welche, vor, in, und nach der 
Geburt eine reine Jungfrau geblieben, und nicht nur eine Menschengebirerin, 
auch nicht nur Χριστοτόκος oder eine Christegebarerin, sondern wahrhaftig eine 


Θεοτόκος GOttesgebarerin, sey. ὶ 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 157 


““ We embrace as a sure and undoubted interpretation of the Scrip- 
tures the Nicaean and the Constantinopolitan Symbol, in the very same 
words in which it is set forth in the third session of the Council of 
Trent, as that starting point in which all who profess Christ’s Faith 
necessarily agree, and as the firm and only foundation against which the 
gates of the infernal regions shall never prevail. 

‘And we acknowledge that with this Symbol agrees * * * 
the confessions of the First Synod of Ephesus, and of the Synod of Chalce- 
don, and, moreover, those which the Fifth and Sixth Synods eee to 
the relics of the Nestorians and of the Eutychians.”” 


They add further : 


‘And, besides, whatever, from the very times of the Apostles, and 
thereafter, with unanimous and notorious consent, the primitive Church 
believed and taught as a necessary article of faith, the same, we also, 
Srom the Scriptures, profess both to believe and to teach.”’ 

See more of the English and the Latin above, pp. 143 to 145. 


The above professions logically followed out would make them 
believe all primitive Christian doctrine, discipline and rite, so far as 
they were held as zecessary, as well as the faith of the Six Synods. 


THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 


This in the form adopted as ‘‘ the Confession of Faith,’’ of ‘‘the 
Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,’’ thus speaks 
“of Synods and Councils.”’ 


‘“CHAPTER XXXI. 
OF SYNODS AND COUNCILS. 


1. ‘For the better government and further edification of the 
‘Church, ¢here ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called 
Synods or Councils, and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers 
of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power 
which Christ hath given them for edification, and not for destruction, 
to appoint such assemblies; and to convene together in them, as often 
as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the Church. * * * 

2. ‘It belongeth to Synods and Councils, ministerially, to de- 
termine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down 
rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of 
God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases 


158 Chapter 77. 


of mal-administration, and authoritatively to determine the same, which 
decrees and determinations, if consonant to the word of God, are to 
be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agree- 
ment with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, 
as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word. 


3. “Αἴ! Synods or Councils since the Apostles’ times, whether 
general or particuler, may err, and many have erred; therefore they 
are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a 
help in both.”’ 


This, though not so definite as is to be desired, nevertheless, in 
the general principle laid down, warrants the reception of much of 
the Six Synods. That principle is that: ‘‘/¢ delongeth to Synods 
and Councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith * * * 
which decrees and determinations, tf consonant to the Word of God, are 
to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agree- 
ment with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as 
being an ordinauce of God, appointed thereunto in His Word.”’ 


As the Presbyterians agree with most of that part of the faith of 
the Six Synods which is outside of the canons of the first four, they 
might in accordance with this principle, receive them so far. The 
fifth and sixth made no canons. 


DIVISION 111. 


QUOTATIONS FROM THE REFORMED ON PROPER DEFERENCE TO 
THE FATHERS. 


This bears to some extent on our subject, for while it is true 
that the sole Ecumenical definitions are in the Six Lcumenical Synods, 
nevertheless in them the Church has ever professed to define no new 
faith but that which had come down from the beginning, and which 
had been held by the Fathers. We shall indeed find that certain 
private views of individual Christian writers, which had never, how- 
ever, been held ‘‘ Always, everywhere and by all,’’ have been con- 
demned by an Ecumenical Council, as, for instance, the view of St. 
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, that αὐ heretical baptism is invalid, 
and that persons with it alone must be baptized when they come to 
the Universal Church, is negatived as to the Novatians, that is the 
Cathari, by Canon VIII. of the First Ecumenical Council, and by 
Cannon VII. of the Second, and so the last named Canon receives 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 159 


the Arians, Macedonians, and some other heretics with the Chrism, 
while the adherents of certain heresies which erred evidently against 
the mode, the form of words, or the design of baptism, are to be 
baptized. 

So once famous writers, Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, are 
condemned in the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, because of what is hereti- 
cal in their writings. 

And so Honorius, bishop of Rome, is condemned in the Sixth, 
because of what is heretical in his. 

Yet in condemning the views of individuals the Ecumenical 
Councils have always done so on the ground of their opposition to a 
clear written tradition, that is to a clear historic transmission and 
consensus in the great bulk of Christian writers from the beginning, 
and to the constant faith of the church, East and West. And the 
Norm which they followed was therefore the faith and practice, not 
which began in the third century or the fourth but which had been 
held ‘‘always, every where and by all’’ from the Apostolic age. 


In other words the Universal Church in her only Ecumenical 
Tribunal, a Synod representing the whole, always follows in inter- 
preting Scripture, in condemning error and in approving truth the 
historic consent of those Fathers whose testimony was one way from 
the Apostles’ days to the Synod in favor of any particular do¢trine, 
discipline, rite, or custom in dispute. She accepts no late tradition. 
It is always with her as in Canon VI. of Nicaea, ‘‘ Let the ancient 
customs prevail,’’ (τὰ apyata ἔθη xpatettw), And an Ecumenical Synod 
which is so guided, and so a¢ts, always finds acceptance at the last, 
even if it has as many enemies as Nicaea had. Whereas a Council 
like the Latrocinium of A. D. 449 at Ephesus against the two Natures 
in Christ, or like the idolatrous Conventicle of Nicaea A. D. 787, 
against the truth that God alone is to be worshipped will finally be 
anathematized by all on the ground of their opposition to the sense 
of the Scriptures as witnessed to by the faith and practice of the 
Fathers and the whole Church from the very beginning. And the 
Six Synods which have decided in accordance with the testimony of 
the Orthodox Fathers are irreversible, for every such sound Synod is 
the highest and final tribunal, and to it all the private opinions of 
even her most distinguished sons may be brought to be tried and 
authoritatively approved or condemned. 


160 Chapter IT. 


A HELVETIC CONFESSION. 


This is the first of the Helvetic Confessions given by Augusti in 
his Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum. As to its history see above, 
p. 150, under the head of Reformed Confessions on the Six Ecumen- 
ical Synods and the reception of their Norms of Definition on the two 


Ecumenical Symbols, namely, that of Nicaea, and that of I. Con- 
stantinople. 


After justly refusing to admit ‘‘ what they call the sense of the 
Roman Church’’ as the binding and authoritative sense of Scripture, 
this Confession continues : 


‘‘We do not spurn the interpretation of the holy Fathers, Greeks 
and Latins, nor do we disapprove their disputings and treatment of 
holy things where these disputings and this treatment agree with the 
Scriptures; but notwithstanding, we modestly depart from them 
when they are found to introduce any thing alien to the Scriptures 
or contrary to them. Nor do we think that we do them any injury 
by this course, because they all with one mouth are unwilling that 
their writings should be considered as equal to the Canonical Scrip- 
tures, but they command us to approve their writings so far as they 
agree with those Scriptures, or to disapprove them where they disa- 
gree with them, and they command us to receive what agrees with 
the Scriptures and to depart from what disagrees with them. In the 
same rank are also to be placed the definitions or canons of 
councils,’’ (130). 

THE GALLICAN CONFESSION. 

This has the following passage: 

‘We detest all the sects condemned out of the Word of God by 
the ancient holy doctors as, for instance, by Athanasius, Hilary, 
Cyril, Ambrose, and by the rest,’’ (131). 


(130). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 6: Proinde non as- 
pernamur sanctorum Patrum Graecorum Latinorumque interpretationes, neque 
reprobamus eorundem disputationes ac tractationes rerum sacrarum, cum Scrip- 
turis consentientes: a quibus tamen recedimus modeste, quando aliena a Scrip- 
turis aut his contraria adferre deprehenduntur, Nee putamus illis ullam a nobis 
hac re injuriam irrogari, cum omnes uno ore nolint sua scripta aequari canon- 
icis, sed probare jubeant, quatenus vel consentiant cum illis, vel dissentiant, 
jubeantque consentientia recipere, recedere vero a dissentientibus. Eodem in 
ordine collocantur etiam conciliornun definitiones vel canones. 

(131). Confessio Gallicana, p. 112 of Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolico- 
yum. Omnes Seétas a vetustis illis san@tis doGtoribus veluti Athanasio, Hilario, 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 161 


Finally, on the need of Church Authority as set forth in the Six 
Synods. 


The following sets forth to us the need of the Ecumenically can- 
onical discipline, and the need also of the Six Ecumenical Synods as 
the sole basis of Church Union, and the sad results of unlimited pri- 
vate twistings of Scripture against them: 


Count Dimitry Tolstoy, a Russian and a member of the Russo- 
Greek Church, in his work in French on ‘‘ Roman Catholicism in 
Russia,’’ volume I. (Paris, 1863), pages 225, 226, 227 and 228, has 
some noteworthy remarks on the fall of Protestantism in Lithuania, 
where it once had considerable strength, but where to-day it has not, 
according to the article ‘‘ Russza,’’? in McClintock and Strong’s Cy- 
clopaedia, much more than one hundred thousand souls. The 
causes of its ruin he ascribes in part, 1, to zts lack of organization, for 
it was Presbyterian, not Episcopal: and 2, to the carelessness of the 
ministers in not spreading their doctrines among the common people, 
but in confining their efforts mainly to the higher classes and to the 
Third Estate, that is the untitled but well off people. His words 
convey a lesson which Christians everywhere should heed, and there- 
fore I quote: 


‘‘From the seventeenth century Calvinism began to grow weak 
in Lithuania; the Protestant Churches were abandoned more and 
more. ‘The clergy grew fewer. Two sorts of reasons provoked 
that decadence: internal causes inherent in the very organization 
of the Calvanist Church, and external reasons, which consisted in 
oppressive measures on the part of the administration. That Church 
had no fixed centre; the convocation of Synods could not supply the 
lack of firmly established ecclesiastical authority. The appearance of 
new sects, particularly of Socinianism, which gota great development, 
only weakened Protestantism still more. Lastly, the two chief 
branches of that doctrine, Calvinism and Lutheranism, had no close 
conne¢tion with each other.’’ 


Then, after referring to the fact that another cause of the 
divergence between those two denominations was the fact that the 
Calvinists were Polanders, and the Lutherans almost exclusively 


Cyrillo, Ambrosio, et ceteris, ex Dei verbo damnatas, detestamur. For an ac- 
count of this Confession see in this work, page 134 above. ‘ 


162 Chapter IT. 


Germans, he mentions the attempt made by Vladislas IV. to re- 
concile the clergy of the Protestant denominations by the Council of 
Thorn in A. D. 1644, and tells us that ‘‘It had a result utterly opposed 
to what he had hoped; not only did no reconciliation in matters of faith 
follow, but the ecclesiastics returned move embittered against each 
other. ‘The Calvinist ministers are themselves the cause of their 
doctrine not having taken deeper root in Lithuanian soil, for they 
limited their activity exclusively to the high classes of society and 
in part to the Third Estate, without troubling themselves to spread 
it among the mass of the people. ‘To this internal weakness was 
joined external persecutions: dissidents were deprived of the right of 
sending deputies to the Diet, to hold public offices, and after 1717 
even to have representatives in the tribunal of Lithuania, which 
judged of appeals between Latins and dissidents: the Roman clergy, 
after having taken from them the right to celebrate publicly their 
religious offices, took possession of their Churches, summoned them 
to appear before their tribunals, and converted them by every 
means to their faith. ‘Thus, for example, the Protestant children 
of a widow of the same rite were obliged to embrace Latinism if 
their mother contracted a second marriage with a Catholic.’’ 


Below he states as the result of all the causes mentioned above, 
that 

‘‘ About the second half of the seventeenth century, in the large 
cities like Vilno, Witebsk, Polotsk, etc., there were scarcely any 
Calvinists longer; at the end of that century one could count in 
Lithuania only forty-eight Churches of that religion, four schools, 
and forty-seven pastors; at the end of the eighteenth century there 
remained to them in all that country only twenty-eight Churches.’” 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 163 


ΝΣ» 


Peer ER S hs CU MP NECA ΘΕ een: 


INTRODUCTORY MATTER. 


CHAPTER: TET. 
ARIUS AND HIS HERESIES. 
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES. 


The authorities for the Synod of Nicaea, are given by Stanley in 
his H/zstory of the Eastern Church, (New York, Scribners’ edition, 
1862), pages 144,145. ‘To these the reader isreferred. Stanley’s work 
itself should be added. ‘Three remarks may be made regarding it: 


1. It is very rich in the citation of original authorities. 


2. The indifference and unbelieving spirit of the author, as welf 
as his lack of Churchliness, (a sure sign of sympathy with heresy), 
crops out here and there. Compare, as samples of his misrepresenta- 
tion of the church, or scepticism, pages 245, 246, 314, 315, 331 and 
349. On page 315 he seems to deny the Symbol, that is Creed- 
doctrine, of ‘‘one Baptism for the remission of sins,’ and makes it 
pagan; and on page 349 he quotes the heretical Theodoret’s out- 
rageously unjust abuse of St. Cyril of Alexandria, seemingly with 
approval, 


3. Though he deserves praise for much erudition, nevertheless 
he is inexact in places, his mistakes being generally, uniformly so far 
as I have noticed, against the Universal Church. 


REMARKS ON THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITIES BEFORE THE SIXTH 
CENTURY THERE CITED. 
Philostorgius was positively heretical, and in sympathy with the 
radical Arian that is, Eunomian, party to which he belonged. 
His testimony is branded again and again as false by the learned 
Photius. 


164 Chapter IIT. 


Constantine had good intentions, but, as his letter to Alexander 
and Arius proves, was at first without any due sense of the vital 
character of the points involved. Afterwards ke did better. But to- 
wards the last he fell into the hands of Arian ecclesiastics, though even 
then he recalled Athanasius from exile. 

Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, was an Arian, as St. Athanasius, 
elsewhere to be quoted, shows. 

Auxano, was a Novatian presbyter, and therefore a schismatic, 
perhaps we may say, therefore, a heretic. 

Socrates was a layman, whose orthodoxy, justly or unjustly, 
has been called in question. He fails often to appreciate the value of 
a stand for truth on the part of its early champions, owing to his in- 
difference to doctrine. Like many other laymen, he is so shallowly 
fond of the praéical as occasionally to forget that the basis of all prac- 
tice acceptable to God is His dogmatic teaching by his Holy Spirit in 
the Word and in the Church in Ecumemical Council assembled. 

Sozomen writes with that mixture of thoroughness and shallow- 
ness which might be expected of a mere civil lawyer discoursing on 
recondite theological questions. 

SECTION 1. Arius. 
2. His charaéter and personal appearance. 
3. His talents. 
4. His pride of intellect. 
5. Cheerful aspeét of the Church just before the Arian 
heresy arose. 


ON 


. The beginning of the Arian Controversy. 

7. Arius and his Heresies. 

δ. St. Athanasius brands his heresy as resulting in poly- 
theism and creature-worship. St. Epiphanius and 
other Fathers to the same effect. 

9. Spread of creature-service the result of Arian teaching. 

1. ‘The founder of the Arian heresy was Arius (132), who is 
said to have been a Libyan (133). ‘‘ At first,’’ writes Sozomen (134), 


(132). Sozomen, i., 15. \ 
(133). Epiphan. Haeres., 1xix., I. 
(134). Sozomen, i., 15. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 165 


‘‘ pretending to be zealous for dogma, he cooperated with Meletius,” the 
Egyptian schismatic, ἦγε his innovations. But afterwards he forsook 
him and was ordained deacon by Peter the Bishop of Alexandria.” 
Peter’s episcopate was in A. Ὁ. 300-311. ‘‘ And again he was cast 
out of the church by him because when Peter excommunicated the 
partisans of Meletius and refused to admit their baptism, Arius attacked 
the acts of Alexander and could not bear to be quiet (135). But when 
Peter died a martyr, Arius asked pardon of Achillas |Peter’s succes- 
sor], and was permitted to minister as deacon, and was deemed worthy 
of the presbyterate.”’ Achillas was bishop of Alexandria A. D. 311, 
312. ‘And after those things Alexander”? [Achillas’ successor and 
bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 312-325] ‘‘also held him [Arius] i 
honor (136). And Arius became very much skilled in dialectics, for he 
was said to be not without a share of knowledge in such sciences , and 
he developed absurd doéirines, so that he dared to declare in church 
WHAT HAD NEVER BEEN SAID BY ANY OTHER BEFORE HIM, namely, 
THAT THE SON OF GOD WAS MADE OUT OF THINGS WHICH HAD NO 
EXISTENCE, AND THAT THERE WAS ONCE WHEN HE WAS NOT, AND 
THAT ΗΕ IS CAPABLE OF VIRTURE AND OF VICE, AND THAT HE IS A 
CREATURE AND A WORK, and many other things which one who main- 
tained such absurdities would be likely to assert as he went forward 
into disputations and into the examination of particular questions.”’ 


One incident related of him by the inexact and Arian writer 
Philostorgius would be much to his credit if true. Photius epito- 
mizes his statement thus: 


2. ‘‘The impious Philostorgius says that when the votes for the 


(135). In the English translation of this place in Bohn’s Ecclesiastical 
Library, we find the following note: 

“In the Acts of Peter the Martyr, (which are so ancient that they are quoted 
by Justinian), it is asserted that Arius was excommunicated on account of his 
perverse opinions, and not as Sozomen here says, because he sided with the 
Meletians. As Valesius remarks, it is somewhat strange that neither Alexander 
nor Athanasius make any mention of this excommunication of Arius by Peter.”’ 
However strange it may be, it is not so strange as to render the statement 
incredible, for there are other things which are related by another or others, of 
which they do not speak, when we might suppose they would. Moreover, such 
omissions are common in all periods. Besides, the remains of Alexander are 
quite meagre. 


(136). Sozomen’s Hccl. Hist, i., 15. 


166 Chapter IIT. 


archiepiscopate [of Alexandria] were inclining to Arius, Arius pre- 
ferred Alexander to himself, and so contrived that the votes turned 
about to him’’ (137). 

But Philostorgius’ work abounds in lies. Photius justly criti- 
cizes it as follows: ‘‘The History was written by Philiostorgius as an 
encomium on the heretic, and as a slander and a casting of blame 
upon the Orthodox rather than as a history’’ (138). In his epitome 
of Philostorgius’ so-called /77story, Book II., chap. xi., he denominates 
him. ‘‘ This impious contriver of falsehood’’ (139); moreover the date 
of the alleged action was before the beginning of Alexander’s pope- 
dom, and therefore before Arius’ lapse into heresy. 


2. Epiphanius this describes 7s character and personal appearance: 


‘The old man, puffed up by vanity, stood aside from the appointed 
way. He was of very tall stature, of downcast look, apparelled him- 
self like a crafty serpent, and was able to steal away every guileless 
heart by means of his unscrupulous pretence. For he was such a 
person that he always wore a hemzphorium (140) and a colobion, (141). 
He was sweet in his address, always persuading and flattering souls,’’ 
(142). 

3. Arius’ talents. 

Sozomen writes of him that ‘‘he became very much skilled in 
dialectics’? (143), and Socrates speaks of him as ‘‘xot without some 
share of dialectic utterance,’’ (144). 


4. fis pride of intellect. 


(137). Philostorgius’ Accl. Htst., col. 461, tome 65, of Migne’s Patrologia 
Graeca. 

(138). Id., Preface before bk. i., col. 460, tome 65, of Migne’s Patrologia 
Graeca. 

(139). Id., Il.}'xi.,,col..473,. Migne; id. 

(140). Sophocles, in his Glossary of Later and Byzantine Greek, informs us 
that this ἡμιφόριον and the ἡμιφάριον were the same, viz.: a ‘light outer gar- 
ment’? The name signifies a half φᾶρος. See φᾶρος. 

(141). Liddell and Scott’s Greek TLexion, under Κολοβίων refers us to 
κολόϑιον, both words having the same signification, viz.: az under-garment, with 
its sleeves curtailed (v. koA030¢), i. e., reaching only half down to the elbow, or 
entirely without sleeves. On both ἡμιφόριον and κολοβίων see Patavius, animadver- 
sion, p. 284, t. ii., of his edition of Epiphanius, Colon., A. D. 1682. 

(142). Epiphan. Haeres., lxix., 3. 

(143). Sozomen £ccl, Hist., i., 15, col. 905, A., tome 67, of Migne’s Patro- 
logia Graeca. 

(144). ‘Socrates’ 2ccl. F77st:,"1., 5, cold 4a, ΤΑΣ ΤΟΣ 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 167 


Epiphanius ascribes his departure from truth to his being ‘puffed 
up with vanity,’’ (145). 

The language of Alexander, Pope [that is Father] of Alexandria, 
(we use ancient terms in ancient senses) is more detailed, and exhibits 
in a strong light the disregard of the Arians for the Historical Tradition 
of the Church, a feature in all the rout of similar Antitrinitarian 
heresies since. | 

After stating the heresies of Arius and the deacon (or presbyter) 
Achillas, Alexander adds : 

“We therefore, though slowly, because their errors were concealed 
from us, inflicted on them those penalties which befitted both their lives 
and their unholy attempt, for by a unanimous vote we expelled them 
from the Church which worships the Divinity of Christ,’’ (146). 


Further on in the same document, Alexander after speaking of 
their sins against Christ, adds : 

‘And why then, beloved [brethren] should what I am about to 
write be deemed wonderful; why should it be deemed wonderful, if I 
shall set forth their lying and false accusation against me, and against 
our most pious laity? For those who have arrayed themselves against 
the Divinity of the Son of God do not shun to utter their unfavorable 
and drunkard-stories against us. They do not deem any of the ancients 
worthy to be compared with themselves, nor can they bear to be put 
on a level with those teachers with whom we were conversant from 
our boyhood. Moreover, they do not think that any of our fellow- 
ministers anywhere possesses even a measure of wisdom, but say that 
they themselves alone are wise and that they themselves alone are 
without property; and that they themselves are discoverers of doctrines, 
and that those things have been revealed to themselves alone which 
never came into the mind of any man under the Sun. Oh unholy 
conceit, and unmeasured madness, and empty glorying which befits 
the melancholic, and oh the Satanic way of thinking which has become 
inveterate in their unholy souls! Neither the dear to God clearness of 


(145). Epiphan. Haeres., lxix., cap. 3, 'Exdpuate yap ἀρθεὶς ὁ γέρων τοῦ 
προκειμένου ἐξέστη. 

(146). Col. 889, tome 82 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, Theodoret’s Fccl. 
Hist., book i., chap. 3: παμψηφεὶ τῆς προυσκυνοίσης Χριστοῦ τῆν Θεότητα αὐτοὺς Ἐκκλησίας 
'εξηλάσαμεν. This contains a hint in favor of the doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexan- 
dria’s Anathema VIII., and Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. 


168 Chapter 771. 


the ancient writings has not sufficed to put them to shame, nor has the 
harmonious piety of our fellow-ministers regarding Christ lessened 
their audacity against Him. Not even the demons can endure their 
unholy conduct, for they are on their guard against uttering any 
blasphemous expression against the Son of God (147). 


Theodoret associates Arius’ love of power and jealousy with the 
origin of his heresey: for in Chapter I., book 1, of his Ecclesiastical 
History, he writes: 


‘At that time Arius, who was enrolled in the catalogue of the 
presbyters, and was entrusted with the explanation of the Scriptures. 
of God, seeing that Alexander’s hand held the helm of the High Priest- 
hood(148), did not bear up against the assault of envy; but being pricked 
on by it, he began to seek for occasions for quarreling and for conflict. 
And [yet] when he gazed at the praiseworthy conduct of the man, he 
could not contrive any accusations against him, but, nevertheless, his. 
envy hindered him from keeping quiet. The enemy of the truth find- 
ing him a fit instrument for his wickedness by him stirs up and moves a 
surging tempest against the Church. For he persuades him to con- 
tradict openly the Apostolic teaching of Alexander. And [so] when 
Alexander, following the godly doctrines (149), was saying that Ζλε 
Son ts of the same honor as the Father and that He has the same sub- 
stance as the Father who brought him forth, Arius [on the other hand] 
openly fighting against the truth, called Him a ‘‘creature and a work,” 
and added the expression, ‘‘ 7here was once when Fle was not,’’ and those 
other errors which we shall learn more clearly from his writings. 
And not only did he continue to say those things in the Church, but 
also outside in assemblies of the people, and in sessions of the 
clergy. And going about among the houses he led captive as many 
as he could. But Alexander, the advocate of the Apostolic Dogmas, 
at first tried by exhortations and by counsels to persuade him to change 
his mind. But when he saw that he was as frantic as a Corybant 


(147). Theodoret, Eccl. Hist., i, 3, col. gor, C., tome 67 of Migne’s Fatro- 
logia Graeca. 


(148). Greek, ἀρχιερωσύνης, that is the episcopate. To-day one sometimes 
hears in Greece the term High Priest (ἀρχιερεύς) for Bishop. 


(149). Or, according to another reading, ‘‘the divine Oracles,” τοῖς θείοις: 
λογίοις, where Oracles mean the Scriptures, as in Rom. iii., 2, etc. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical-Councits. 169 


(150) and that he was openly preaching his impiety, he expelled him 
from the hieratic registers: for he heard the Law of God crying out, 
Tf thy right eye cause thee to offend, pluck it out and cast it from thee’’ 
(151). 

5. The cheerful aspect of the church when Arius appeared is thus 
depicted by Theodoret ; who though free from Arian denial of Christ’s 
Divinity, nevertheless favored Nestorius, the man-worshipper : 


‘« After the death of the wicked tyrants, Maxentius, Maximin and 
Licinius, the storm abated which their atrocity had, like a furious 
whirlwind, excited against the church: the hostile winds were hushed 
and tranquility ensued. ‘This was effected by Constantine, a prince 
deserving of the highest praise, who, like the divine apostle, was not 
called by man or through man, but by God (152). He enacted laws 
prohibiting sacrifices to idols, and commanding churches to be 
erected. He appointed believers to be the governors of the provinces, 
ordered that honor should be shown to the priests, and threatened 
with death those who dared to insult them. The churches which 
had been destroyed were rebuilt, and others still more spacious and 
magnificent than the former ones were erected. Hence the concerns 
of the church were smiling and prosperous, while those of her 
opponents were involved in disgrace and ruin. The temples of the 
idols were closed; but frequent assemblies were held, and festivals 
celebrated in the churches. But the Devil, the enemy of mankind, 
although conscious that the church was upheld by the Creator and 
Ruler of the world, could not see her sailing on her course in pros- 
perity without devising plans for overwhelming her. When he per- 
ceived that his former artifices had been detected, that the error of 
idolatry was recognized, and that the greater number of men worship- 
ped the creator, instead of adoring, as heretofore, the creature, he 
did not dare to declare open war against our God and Saviour; but 
having found some who, though bearing the name of Christians, 


(150). The Corybanis were priests of Cybele, and their rites were of a 
frenzied, enthusiastic, and wild character, so that the word here used κορυβαντι- 
avra, from κορυβαντιάω, came to mean one who acted in a frenzied, wild manner. 
See that Greek word in Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon. 

(151). Migne’s FPatrologia Graece, tome 82, column 885. Theodoret’s 
Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter i. 


(52) Ὁ 51:1: 1. 


170 Chapter 717. 


were yet slaves to ambition and vainglory, he thought them fit 
instruments in the execution of his designs. He accordingly used 
them as the means of drawing others back into error, not indeed by 
the former artifice of setting up the worship of the creature, but by 
attempting to bring down the Creator to a level with the creatures”’ 
(153). 

Theodoret should have added that Arius not only made God the 
‘Word to be a creature, but also by so doing reintroduced creature- 
worship and polytheism. But as he was a Nestorian, he was a man- 
worshipper himself. 

6. The Beginning of the Arian Controversy is not told by all 
authors in the same manner. But perhaps all the accounts may be 
reconciled, at least in the main, by placing the events in the follow- 
ing order: 

1. Personal ambition had much to do with the rise of the heresy. 
“This is charged against Arius by his own bishop, Alexander (154). 


Indeed, factions and heretical action among the Alexandrian pres- 
‘byters were not confined to him, for we are informed by Epiphanius, 
that each of four ministers of that rank, Colluthus, Carpones, 
Sarmatas and Arius had by variety of interpretation in their public 
teachings, each one in his own separate congregation, caused strife 
among the people, so that some ranged themselves under the 
standard of Arius, others under that of Colluthus, others under 
that of Carpones, and others under that of Sarmatas and some 
termed themselves Colluthians, and others Arians,(155). Colluthus 
had even gone so far as to teach perverse heresy, though it soon 


(153). Theodoret ZAcc/. Hist., translation in Bohn’s Eccl. Lib., Book L, 
‘Chapter 1]. 

(154). See his Epistle to Alexander in Theodoret’s Zccl. Hist, i., 4. 

(155). Epiphan. Haeres., lxix., cap. 2, Petavius ed. After mentioning 
‘churches of the Orthodox in Alexandria, he adds: Ἔν μιᾷ δὲ τούτων Κόλλουθός τις 
ὑπῆρχεν, ἐν ἑτέρᾳ δὲ Καρπώνης, ἐν ἄλλῃ δὲ Σαρματὰς, καὶ ἤΑρειος οὗτος ὁ προειρημένος μίαν 
τῶν προειρημένων κατέχων ᾿Εκκλησίαν. "Ἕκαστος δὲ τούτων δῆλον κατὰ τὴν εἰθισμένην 
σύναξιν τὸν αὑτῷ πεπιστευμένον λαὸν διδάσκων, ἐν ταῖς ἐξηγήσεσιν ἔριν τινὰ ἐνέβαλον ἐν τῷ 
λαῷ. Καὶ οἱ μὲν προσεκλίθησαν ‘Ape, ἕτεροι δὲ ΚΚολλούθῳ, ἄλλοι δὲ Kapravy, ἕτεροι δὲ 
Σαρματᾷ. ‘Qe οὖν ἐξηγεῖτο ἕκαστος ἐν τῇ iia 'Εκκλησίᾳ, ἄλλος ἄλλο τι, καὶ ἄλλος ἄλλο, ἐκ τῆς 
προσκλήσεως [Forte προσκλίσεως, marg. note] καὶ ἐπαίνου δὲ τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν, οἱ μὲν Κολ- 
λαυθιανοὺς ἑαυτοὺς ὠνόμασαν, ἄλλοι δὲ Αρειανούς. ‘This reveals a sad state of strife 
among the presbyters of a single city. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 171 


perished, and presbyter only as he was, had assumed the functions 
of a bishop, and had ordained many presbyters and deacons. His 
‘ordinations, however, were afterwards cancelled in a Synod held at 
Alexandria, as is asserted by St. Athanasius(156). Alexander teaches 
plainly that he was guilty of the sin of making merchandise of Christ 
(157), or simony. Carpones and Sarmatas followed the heresy of 
Arius. Their names are signed with his to a letter from Nicomedia 
containing a profession of their heresy (158). It was written after 
their expulsion (159). Ifthe Colluthiani mentioned by St. Augustine 
are the same as the Λολλουθιανούς mentioned here by Ephiphanius, the 
heresy which distinguished them was the assertion that God had not 
made evil things(160). Besides this Alexandria was cursed by the Puri- 
tan schism of Meletius, not to mention other sects. So that its Bishop 
certainly had his hands full of trouble. Alexander charges Arius 
with imitating, though with less reason, the ambition of Colluthus. 


He writes as follows: ‘‘Alexander sendeth greeting in the Lord 
to Alexander the most honored and same-minded brother. ‘The rule- 
loving and money-loving disposition of wretched men is always wont 
to plot against those dioceses which seem to be the greater, and on dif- 
ferent pretexts such men assail the church’s piety. For, goaded to 
frenzy by the devil who works in them, they are driven on to their 
purposed lust, and they skip away from all piety, and trample on the 
fear of God’s judgment. Inasmuch as I have suffered from them it 
was necessary that I should tell the facts regarding them to your 
piety, in order that you may beon your guard against such men, lest 
any of them may dare to attack your dioceses, also either in their 
‘own persons (for the cheats are wont to play the hypocrite to 
deceive), or by letters lyingly and elegantly gotten up and capable 
of stealing away the man who cherishes simple and pure faith. 
And so Arius and Achillas have lately made a conspiracy and have 


(156). Page p. 15, of Bohn’s edition of the English Translation of Theodoret. 

(157). Epistle of Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander of Constantinople, 
in Theodoret, Zccl. Hist., i., 3. 

(158). Epiphan. Haeres., Ixix., 7, 8. 

(159). Id., Haeres., lxix., 2, 3, ad. fin. 


(160). Augustin. Lib. de Haeres. Haeres., Ixy.: ‘Coluthiani a quodam 
Colutho, qui dicebat Deum non facere mala; contra illud quod scriptum est, 
£go Deus creans mala.” Is., xlv., 7. 


172 Chapter 7177. 


ee 


emulated Colluthus’ love to rule, and have acted in a much worse 
way than he did.”’ 


At this epoch Alexandria contained several churches, over each 
of which a presbyter was appointed. Epiphanius notes this, as it 
would seem, asa singular circumstance. For in early times and in 
his day the general rule had been for the churches of the cities out- 
side of the cathedral to be supplied from it, the modern parish system 
not having yet been generally established. Alexandria however was 
an exception, for here it was customary to place a presbyter in per- 
manent change of each congregation (161). The account of this 
arrangement given by Epiphanius is as follows: ‘‘They say that 
he’’ [Arius] ‘“‘was a Libyan by nation, and became a presbyter in 
Alexandria. He was over the church called the Baucalis. For all 
the churches of the Universal Church in Alexandria are under one 
Archbishop ; and particular presbyters are placed over them (162), for 
the ecclesiastical needs of those of the inhabitants who are near each 
church, and quarter or labae (163), as they are termed in the dialect of 
their country, by the Alexandrians inhabiting the city,’’ (164). 


This position gave him an opportunity of propagating his doc- 
trine for a time, at least, in secret. 
From Epiphanius, we learn that Arius craftily at first propa- 


gated his heresy unknown to his Bishop. For ‘‘straightway he drew 
off under one banner’’ (165), ‘‘seven hundred of the virgins of the 


(161). See the ten volume edition of Bingham’s Antiquities, Oxford, A. D. 
1855, Vol. VIIL, p. 432, index under ‘‘ Parochial Churches,” and especially 
Vol. III., p. 416-418, Book IX., Chap. viii., Sec. 5, where the very passage above 
quoted from Epiphanius is adduced. 

(162). The Greek is καὶ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ταύταις ἐπιτεταγμένοι εἰσὶ πρεσβύτεροι, διὰ τὰς 
ἐκκλησιαστικὰς χρείας τῶν οἰκητόρων, πλησίων ἑκάστης "Ἐκκλησίας αὐτῶν, καὶ ἀμφόδων, ἢ 
τοι λαβῶν ἐπιχωρις καλουμένων ὑπὸ τῶν τὴν ᾿Αλεξανδρέων κατοικούντων πόλιν. See it in 
Epiphan. Haeres., lxix., 1. This might imply that two or more presbyters 
were attached to every church, but that one was over the rest, or it may mean 
that there was only one in each church. 

(163). The term in the Greek is λαβῶν, In the margin of p. 727, t. I, Petavius’ 
edition of Epiphanius, Colon., A. D. 1682, is found ‘‘ Forte Aavpor.”’ See the 
edition of Bingham just mentioned, Vol. iii., p. 416, note 91, where the reading 
λαβρῶν is suggested. Both λαυρῶν and λαβρῶν mean alleys, lanes. 


(164). Epiphan. Haeres., lxix., I. 
(165). Epiphan. Haeres., lxix., cap. 3. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 178 


church, and, the account of it has it, seven presbyters and twelve 
deacons’’ (166). Nor did the poison stop here. It extended itself 
to certain members of the episcopal order. For he persuaded and led 
away with him Secundus, Bishop of Pentapolis, and others. ‘‘But 
these things,’ writes Epiphanius, ‘‘occurred in the church without 
the knowledge of the blessed Alexander the Bishop’’ (167), until his 
suffragan Archbishop (168) Meletius the prelate from the Thebaid told 
him (169). For as yet Meletius had not gone to the extreme of 
hostility which afterwards marked him, (170). 


At this point Alexander, at whose sermon, if we may credit 


Socrates, Arius had started his opposition, now reappears on the 
stage. 


He sends for Arius, and asks him whether the charge against him 
is true. Arius, without doubt or fear at once avows his misbelief in 
plain terms. ‘Then Alexander assembles his presbytery, and certain 
Bishops who were present (171), ‘‘and sat down as judge, to hear the 
’ statements of the contending parties’’ (172). Up to this time his con- 
duct had been most forebearing. Even after he knew of Arius’ defec- 
tion, he was very patient with him, and tried persuasion before he cut 
them off from the Church. Sozomen goes so far as to assert that 
‘“some seized on the things said by Arius, and kept blaming Alexan- 
der on the ground that he ought not to endure his innovations against 
Christian dogma.’’? ‘There were, according to him, two examinations 
of Arius by Alexander (173). He adds that even during the debate 
in the second (the first ended without a final decision) he seemed to be 
somewhat passive, on one point praising one set of disputants, on an- 
other point the other set (174). 


(166). Ibid. ‘These virgins were females. Sometimes males are so called, 
as in Rev. xiv., 4. 
(167). Ibid. 


(168). Ibid. Epiphanius expressly here terms him ἀρχιεπίσκοπος and at the 
same time a suffragan of Alexander. From this we may infer the extent of the 
jurisdiction of Alexandria. 


(169). Ibid. ’Eyivero δὲ ταῦτα ἐν τῇ ᾿ἘΕκκλησίᾳ, ἀγνοοῦντος τοῦ μακαρίου ᾿Αλεξάνδρου 


τοῦ ᾿Επισκόπου,͵ ἕως bre Μελήτιος, κ. τ. A. 
(170). Ibid. 
(171). See for all these facts, Epiphan. Haeres., lxix., 3. 
(172). Sozomen, Zccl, Hist, i., 15. 
(173). Ibid. 
(174). Ibid. 


174 Chapter 777. 


All this shows, to say the least, extreme mildness on his part. 
Indeed, if any doctrinal leaning be understood by the last cited pas- 
sage, he failed in his duties to that sacred traditioned deposit of vital. 
doctrine which it was his duty to guard (175). And it is clear that 
the swiftness of action of the right minded about him would have been: 
more rapid than his own had they been in his place. But however 
much like vacillation his mildness appeared while the case was under 
investigation, the righteous firmness of the man became apparent as. 
soon as the ends of justice in the investigation were answered. Then 
he commanded Arius to receive the doctrine that ¢he Son zs ‘‘consub- 
stantial and co-eternal’’ with the Father, and to reject what is opposed 
to that doctrine (176), and on his persisting in his heresy ‘‘ ejected him 
trom the order of the presbytery, and excommunicated him, (177). And 
with him were reft off the 700 Virgins aforesaid, and the clergy 
aforesaid, and a large multitude’’ (178). His co-workers who were 
cut off with him, of the diocese of Alexandria, were, according to Sozo- 
men, the presbyters, Aeithalas, and Achillas, and.Carpones and Sar- 
matas, and Arius; and the deacons, Euzoius and Macarius, Julius, 
and Menas, and Helladius (179). Inthe same chapter he states that 
no small part of the Alexandrian laity followed the excommunicated: 
Arian clerics, some because they had embraced their heresy, and 
others because they pitied them, as often happens in such cases.. 
They were not wise. 


The beginning of the Arian controversy is told us by Socrates, 
who, judging from his writings, may have been a Novatian, and is 


(175). A note in col. 905, tome 82, of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca says that 
the testimony of all writers other than Sozomen proves that Alexander was not 
uncertain even at the first what opinion he should follow, but always followed 
that which is Orthodox. 


(176). Sozomen, /cc/. H7st., i., 15. His account savors of the shallowness. 
of a lawyer, lacking due appreciation of the value of dogma, rather than of the 
erudite theologian. 


(177). Epiphan. Haeres., lxix., cap. 3. 
_ (178). Ibid. 


(179). Sozomen’s Ecclesiastical History, Book I., cap. 15. But Alexander 
mentions Arius only as a presbyter. See Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History,, 
Book I., chap. iv. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 175: 


deemed by some to have been such (180). In chapter iv., book 1, of 
his £cclestastical History, he tells of the victory of the Emperor 
Constantine over Licinius and of the peace which ensued, which was 
so favorable for the Church. He then proceeds to state that Achil- 
las succeeded Peter in the see of Alexandria, Peter having died a 
martyr for the faith in the reign of Diocletian, and that Achillas. 
was succeeded by Alexander, who welded together or increased the 
church; and that once when he was treating of theological topics. 
before his presbyters and the rest of his clerics he made the assertion 
that ‘‘ There zs a Monad in the Trinity’ (181), that is a unity in the 
Trinity, that is that Three are One. 


Socrates adds: ‘‘But a certain Arius, one of the presbyters sub- 
ject to him, a man not without some share of dialectic speech, suppos- 
ing that the Bishop was bringing in the dogma of Sabellius the Libyan, 
from his love of strife bent away into the opinion which is diametrically 
opposite to that of the Libyan, and as it seemed good to him to do, 
he fiercely opposed himself to the utterances of the Bishop, and saith: 

‘““Tf the Father generated the Son, he who was generated has a 
beginning of existence; and from that it ts clear that there was once when 
the Son was not, and tt necessarily follows that He has His Substance 
from things not extsting’’’ (182). 

Here we see four of the heresies condemned in the Nicene Creed, 
namely: 

1. ‘‘ There was once when the Son of God was not,’’ and 

2. ‘‘He has His substance from things not existing,’’ that is, He 
did not come ‘‘ out of the Father's substance,’ as the Creed asserts, but 


(180). Cardinal Baronius in his Axunals, and Philip Labbaeus in his De 
Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, assert that Socrates was of the Novatian sect. Nice- 
phorus also expresses the same opinion in the preface to his Acclestastical His- 
tory, (‘‘Life of Socrates’’ in Bohn’s Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, preface, page 
6). The writer of that preface in Bohn, and Prof. Bright in the preface to his 


Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, take the opposite view, but do not prove it 
clearly. 


(181). Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, Bright’s edition, Book I., Chapter v., 
Kai ποτε παρόντων τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῷ πρεσβυτέρων καὶ TOV λοιπῶν κληρικῶν, φιλοτιμότερον περὶ 
τῆς ἁγίας Τριαδος ἐν Τριάδι μονάδα εἶναι φιλοσοφῶν, ἐθεολόγει. 

(182). Socrates’ ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter v., Bright’s edi- 
tion, Oxford, 1878, page 5: Καὶ φησὶν, εἰ ὁ πατὴρ ἐγέννησε τὸν Yidv, ἀρχὴν ὑπάρξεως 
ἔχει ὁ γεννηθεὶς καὶ ἐκ τούτου δῆλον, ὅτε ἦν OTE οὐκ ἦν ὁ Ὑἱός ἀκολουθεῖ τε ἐξ ἀνάγκης, ἐξ 
οὐκ ὄντων ἔχειν αὐτὸν τὴν ὑπόστασιν. 


176 Chapter 777. 


was made ‘‘ out of things not [then] existing,’ that ts ‘‘ out of nothing.” 
Hence, of course, according to Arius, 


3. The Son of God is a ‘‘creature ,;’’ and hence, according to 
Arius, 


4. ‘‘ Before He was generated He was not.’’ Hence, 


5. Of course all worship of the Son of God, according to Arius, 
is the worship of a creature; that is, creature-worship, and as he 
worshipped Him, he was on his own theory a CREATURE-WORSHIPPER, 
contrary to Christ’s own command in Matthew iv., 10, ‘‘ Zhou shalt 
bow to the Lord thy God, and fim only shalt thou serve.” 


6. Inasmuch as he made the Father to be an eternal God, and 
because an eternal, therefore a superior God, and the Son to be a mere 
creature, and yet a God, and because a creature and non-eternal, there- 
fore an inferior God; therefore, on his own showing, he had two dis- 
similar Gods, not at all of the same substance; and because he had 
two Gods, he was therefore, of course, a polytheist, for all admit that 
he who has more than one God is no longer a Monotheist, but a Poly- 
theist, that is, a believer in more Gods than one; for that is the very 
meaning of the word polythezst. 


Arianism, therefore, was what Athanasius so often in effect terms 
it, a return to paganism, and so, in effect, ax apostasy from the Ortho- 
dox Christ and from Orthodox Christianity. For he who holds to 
creature-worship and to polytheism has gone over to the two funda- 
mental errors of heathenism. And so the Hebrew prophets always 
speak of an Israelite who professed to worship Jehovah still, though 
he had embraced those errors, as having forsaken Jehovah. So St. 
Athanasius and all Orthodox Christians regarded Arius, as Athanasius 
in his works shows again and again. 


7. Arius’ own Account of his Heresies. 
Three productions of Arius’ own brain have reached us. 


1. A letter to Eusebius of Caesarea, his warm partisan. ‘This is 
found in St. Epiphanius’ work Ox Heresies, Heresy LXIX., Section 6; 
and in Chapter v., Book 1., of Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History. 


2. A letter of Arius and his friends after their excommunication 
by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria. It was written in A. D. 321, 
from Nicomedia to him. It is found in Section 16 of the same work 


i Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 177 


of Athanasius (pages 96, 97 and 98 of the Oxford translation), and in 
Section 7, Heresy LXIX., in St. Epiphanius’ work Ox Heresies. It 
is given in the second edition of Hahn’s Lzbliothek der Symbole, Bres- 
lau, A. D. 1877, pages 188 and 189. It is quite a full statement of 
his heresy. 


3. His assault on the divinity of God the Word, which is in 
poetic form, and is foundin St. Athanasius’ fpzstle Concerning the 
Synod held at Ariminum, tn Italy, and at Seleucia, in Isauria, Section 
15, (pages 94, 95 and 96; of the Oxford translation of St. Athan- 
asius’ Tyveatises Against Arianism). 


DOCUMENT I. 
ARIUS’ LETTER TO EUSEBIUS, BISHOP OF NICOMEDIA. 


Arius, on being driven out of Alexandria, betook himself to the 
neighboring country of Palestine, where he found in some bishops, 
friends; in others, opponents. But Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, 
on learning his whereabouts, and the fact that some had received a 
man deposed and excommunicated, wrote circular letters to the Bishops 
of Palestine, of Phoenice and Coele-Syria against him, and so gave 
them warning of his errors and of his character and heresy, and com- 
plained of them for receiving him. Epiphanius states that seventy of 
those letters were still preserved in his day (183). Some, Epiphanius 
states, wrote back dissemblingly, and others with truth, some of them 
saying that they had not received him, while others said that they had 
entertained him in ignorance, and still others said that they had re- 
ceived him only that they might gain him. Arius learned that epistles 
were circulated everywhere against him, and he and his Arian co- 
workers were driven out from every place, and no one would longer 
receive them. Yet Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, who had formerly 
lived with Lucian, the martyr, at Nicomedia, and who held Arian 
sentiments, was wholly for Arius, as was Leontius, another Lucianist 
(184), who was afterwards made Bishop of Antioch by the Arian 
emperor, Constantitts (185). Arius finding the path of the creature- 


(183). Epiphanius Ox Heresies; Heresy L.XIX., Section 4. 
(184). Id., Section 5. 


(185). See the article ‘“‘Zeontius (2)”’ in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary 
of Christian Biography. It is, however, too favorable to that heretic, 


o 


178 Chapter 11. 


serving opponent of God the Son’s Divinity, a hard one, now betook 
himself to his partisan Eusebius, of Nicomedia. 


Epiphanius tells us that he wrote a letter to him before he went 
to Nicomedia. I translate it below from Epiphanius’ work Ox Heresies, 
Heresy L,XIX., Section 6, pages 148, 149; of Part I., vol. iii., of 
Dindorf’s Epiphanius, (Lipsiae, 1861). 

As the Council of Alexandria which condemned Arius and his 
heresies was held about A. D. 320, and as Arius left Alexandria after 
that, and was some time in Palestine before his former Bishop, Pope, 
that is Father, Alexander of Alexandria heard of his reception there,. 
and as he wrote after that to the prelates who had received him, and 
as Arius wrote the following letter to Eusebius, of Nicomedia, after 
that again, its date can not be much before 322 at the earliest. The 
article, ‘‘ dvianism,’’ in McClintock & Strong’s Cyclopedia, makes. 
this the first of the documents from Arius’ pen which have reached us, 
the letter to his former Bishop Alexander, the second; and the Thalia, 
extracts from which are preserved by St. Athanasius, the last. The 
letter to Alexander was written from Nicomedia, perhaps in A. D. 
222 Or 32 3. 

Arius at first held that the Son was liable to change. And, it is 
thought, in the Council of Alexandria in A. D. 320, which con- 
demned him, he was asked whether the Word of God could change 
as the devil did. He was so shameless and blasphemous as to assert 
that He could, because He was subject to change (186). ‘That was 
evidently too much for some; for in this letter to Eusebius of Nicome- 
dia, he takes the back track and admits His unchangeableness. 


“ΑΝ EPISTLE OF ARIUS’’ [TO EUSEBIUS, BISHOP OF NICOMEDIA, 
THE NOTORIOUS ARIAN LEADER]. 


‘To the most desired Master, the faithful man of God, the 
Orthodox Eusebius, Arius, who is unjustly persecuted by Father 
Alexander (187), on account of the truth which conquereth all 
things (188), which truth thou also shieldest, wisheth joy in the 
ord: 


(186). See in Migne’s Dictionnaire des Conciles, Article ““Alexandrie,”” 
A. D. 320, towards the end. 

(187). Πάπα, the word rendered often, Pope. See a note on this term in 
the letter of Arius to Alexander below. 

(188). Or, ‘‘ which conquereth every man.’ 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 179 


ee ee eee 


‘“As my Father Ammonius is about to go to Nicomedia, it 
seemed fair and due for me to address thee through him, and at the 
same time to make [grateful] mention of thy innate love and [good] 
disposition which thou hast towards the brethren for the sake of God 
and of His Christ (189). For the Bishop wastes and persecutes us 
exceedingly, and sets in motion every evil against us; so that he has 
driven us out of the city as godless men (190), because we do not 
agree with his assertion made in public that God always existed [and 
that], the Son always existed, [and] that the Son has existed as long as 
the Father has, that the Son has [always] co-existed uncreatedly with 
God, that He was always born, that He was born without being created 
(191), that God did not precede the Son by a thought nor by a moment, 
that God always existed and that the Son always existed, [and] that 
the Son has come out of God Himself (192). And because Eusebius, 


(189). Greek, καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτοῦ, literally, ‘and of His Anointed One.” 

(190). reek, ὡς ἀνθρώπους ἀθέους. 

(191). Greek, ἀγενητογενής. Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman 
and Byzantine Periods, gives the reading ἀγεννητογενής, and defines it, ‘‘ Created 
by the Unbegotten.”’ But that is plainly wrong, for none of the Orthodox assert- 
ed that of the eternal Logos, but held that he was uncreated. I prefer the 
translation which I have given. For all of them did and do hold that He was. 
born without being created. Bohn’s translation of this document is fair, but in 
places not exact. Its rendering here, ‘‘that He is always being begotten, with- 
out having been begotten,’’ does not accord with the Greek, ἀειγενὴς, ἀγενητογενῆς 
as in Dindorf’s text. With the reading ἀγεννητογενής the meaning would be prac- 
tically about the same, namely, ‘“‘¢hat he was born without being generated.” 
But Arius constantly used generated (γεννηθέντα) in the sense of created or made, 
when he speaks of the Word. The Arians would not understand generated ex- 
cept in the sense of sade; in order to bring in a created God, and hence crealure- 
worship. But the Nicene Creed has a clause which is aimed at that heresy. It 
is, γεννθέντα, οὗ ποιηθέντα, that is, ‘‘born, not made,” for from all eternity He had 
existed as ‘the Word within the Father,’’ ὁ Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, before He was born 
“out of”? the Father just before the worlds were made, and by that birth out of 
the Father’s ‘divine mouth,” as Chapter VI. of the work Ox the Orthodox 
Faith, under the name of St. Phoebadius, words it, He became ‘‘ Zhe Word 
borne forth,’ (ὁ Λόγος προφορικός). 

(192). ‘This was another crucial question to the Arians, for they denied the 
plain affirmation of Christ Himself that He had come out of the Father. For 
the Redeemer asserts that in John xvi., 28, and John viii., 42, as explained else- 
where. ‘To have admitted that the Word had come out of the Father would 
have practically admitted the truth that He is what He is expressly called in 
Hebrews i., 3, that is, ‘“‘ Character of His Substance.’ Hence they insisted so 


180 Chapter IIT. 


thy brother in Caesarea, and Theodosius, and Paulinus, and Athan- 
asius, and Gregory, and Aetius, and all those in the East (193), say 
that God existed unbeginningly before the Son, they have been made 
anathema, with the exception [however] of Philogonius, and Hellan- 
icus, and Macarius, men who are heretics, and who are not instructed 
in the first elements of the Christian faith (194), some of whom say 
that the Son is a Belch (195), and others (196), that He is an uz- 
created Issue (197). And we can not endure even to hear those 
impious expressions, [even] if the heretics should threaten us with 
ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think, and what 
have we taught and do teach? [Why], that the Son ἐς not uncreated, 
nor a Part of the Uncreated One in any manner, and moreover that 
fle was not made out of any previously existing thing, but that He 
came into existence by the will and design of God before times and before 
the worlds, that He zs full God, Sole-generated [God] (198), zxconvert- 
zble into any thing else (199), and that before He was generated, that 
ts before He was created, that ts decreed, or founded (200), He was 


much on their heresies that He was ‘‘ made out of things not existing,” not at all 
out of the Father’s substance, and hence must be a creature, and hence their 
worship of Him was the mere paganism of creature-worship on their showing. 


(193). Zhe Hast includes here, as in later times, Syria and Palestine. We 
will discuss the truth of Arius’ statement further on. 

(194). Greek, ἀνθρώπων αἱρετικῶν ἀκατηχήτων. ‘The last word means literally, 
““not catechised.”” 

(195). This isa reference to the Septuagint Greek version of its Psalm xliv., 1, 
“My heart hath betched forth a good word.”’ 

(196). ‘The expressions ‘‘ some,’ and ‘‘others,’’ hardly befit the three per- 
sons only who are specified above, and so lead us to suspect that something has 
fallen out of here. 


(197). This was the doctrine of St. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, and 
of the whole Church before Arius, and is the doctrine of the Nicene Creed. 

(198) Greek, πλήρης Θεὸς μονογενής. This might be rendered in different 
ways, according to how we punctuate it. In Dindorf’s text of Epiphanius there 
is not even a comma between the words. Arius, as is clear from his other utter- 
ances, would understand ‘‘Sole-generated’’ to mean ‘‘Sole-created,’’ whether we 
supply ‘‘God”’ or ‘‘ Son’? after it. 

(199). Greek, ἀναλλοίωτος. 

(200). The generated, Arius derives from the Septuagint of Proverbs viii., 
25; the created and founded from the Septuagint of Proverbs vili., 22, 23. Those 
were favorite texts of the Arians, which they took in their own perverse sense. 
Athanasius refutes that sense. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 181 


not, For He was not uncreated. But we are persecuted because we 
have said that ¢he Son had a beginning, but that-God had no begin- 
ning. For that reason we are persecuted, and because we have said,. 
that He was made out of non-existing things. And we have so said 
because He zs neither a Part of God, nor of any previously existing 
thing (201). For that reason we are persecuted, as thou knowest. 
I pray that thou mayest be strong in the Lord, and that thou mayest 
be mindful of our tribulations, fellow Lucianist (202), thou who art 
truly Eusebius’’ (203). 

Theodoret, a partisan of Nestorius in the fifth century, was never- 
theless opposed to Arius, and tells us in his Acclestastical History, 
Book I., Chapter V., Bohn’s translation, that ‘‘of those whose names are 
mentioned in this letter, Eusebius was Bishop of Caesarea, Theodotius, 
[spelled ‘Theodosius’ in Epiphanius here] Paulinus of Tyre, Athan- 
asius of Anazarbus, Gregory of Berea, and Aetiusof Lydda. Lydda is 
now called Diospolis. Arius boasted that these were all of one mind 
with himself. He names as his adversaries, Philogonius, Bishop of 
Antioch, Hellanicus, Bishop of Tripoli, and Macarius, Bishop of 
Jerusalem. He spread calumnies against them because they said that. 
the Son is eternal, existing before all ages, equal with the Father, and 
of the same substance.”’ 


Here in this Letter to Eusebius, we find all but one of the 
heresies of Arius which are cursed by the Orthodox and God-inspired 
Anathema at the end of the Creed of the First Ecumenical Council, 
namely : 

1. ‘‘ There was once when the Son of God was not.’’ 


2. ‘‘Before He was generated He was not;’’ the council, how- 
ever, understanding ‘‘generated’’ (γεννηθῆναι) in the sense of “‘born’” 


(201). Greek, οὐδὲ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου τινός. 

(202.) Greek, συλλουκιανιστά. ‘The reference is to Lucian, the martyr, who 
is said to have taught what was afterwards termed the Arian heresy. See the 
writers on him. 

(203.) Greek, ἀληθῶς EioéBie. As Eusebius means ‘‘ Pious,’ the expression 
“truly Eusebius’? means ‘truly pious.’’ One impious creature-server thus 
compliments another. The article ‘‘ drianism”’ in McClintock and Strong’s 
Cyclopzedia, tells us that ‘‘ Voigt (in his Lehre des Athanasius von Alexandrien) 
gives’? the above letter ‘‘with critical emendations, which elucidate the 
development of the opinions of Arius,’’ and refers to a translation from Voigt by 
Dr. Schaeffer, in the Bzbliotheca Sacra, xxi., 1-38. 


182 Chapter II. 


out of the Father’s eternal substance, whereas Arius took it as 
equivalent to ‘‘made’’ and ‘‘created.’’ For the Synod says just 
before in the same Creed, that, 

““The Son of God was born Sole-Born, (γεννηθέντα) out of the 
father, that ts out of the substance of the Father, God out of God, Light 
out of Light, very God out of very God, BORN, not made, (γεννηθέντα, οὐ 
ποιηθέντα), of the same substance as the Father.’’ 

3. ‘‘He was made out of things not existing.” 


4. ‘He was made out of another subsistence or substance’? than 
the Father. 


Boe lle. Was created... 
6. ‘He ts alterable, or convertible’’ [into something else]. 


The szbstance of all those heresies, without exception, are.found 
in the Letter above, and in that of Arius and his fellow-heretic’s Letter 
to Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria. The exception is the assertion 
that, ‘‘the son of God ἐς alterable or convertible’? into something else. 
Arius had made that assertion before he was cast out of the Church, 
and it was made one of the reasons for his just expulsion. So St. 
Athanasius testifies. See Sections 14 and 15 of his work ογ the council 
held at Ariminum in Italy and on that held at Seleucia in [sauria. 


But, even with that emendation, the virus of the heresy remains; 
that is, Arius still makes God the Sona creature, and hence lands at 
last in the primary sins of paganism, that is creature-worship and 
polytheism, for he worshipped the Son as a creature; and that, of 
course, made him a creature-worshipper. And inasmuch as he calls 
the Son of God a created God, and therefore an zzfertor God, because 
created; and inasmuch as he makes the Father azother God uncreated 
and eternal, and because wzcreated and eternal a superior God; there- 
fore Arius had two Gods, and so, of course, was a folytheist. Besides 
these two Gods, according to Arius, were of different substances, one, 
the Father’s, being eternal, and the other, the Son’s, being created be- 
fore the world; and so he worshipped a created substance as well as 
an uncreated one. 


Moreover, he fights bitterly against the belief that the Logos was 
born out of the Father’s substance, and will have it that He was made 
out of things not previously existing. For his Exoukontian (that 
is, ‘‘out of nothing’’) notion is meant as a protest against the 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 183 


Word's being of the same substance as the Father, and of the same 
eternity. 

Arius, after he was turned out of the Church by St. Alexander 
of Alexandria, his Bishop, seems to have dropped the error that God 
the Son is liable to change. At least he confesses just the contrary 
tenet in his Epistle to Eusebius, as do he and his fellow-Arians in 
their Confession of Faith made to Pope Alexander of Alexandria. 


DOCUMENT II. 
ARIUS’ PROFESSION OF FAITH, 


Addressed to Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, who had 
excommunicated 1771. 

On this, Hahn in his B7bliothek der Symbole, page 188, note 929, 
(Breslau, A. D. 1877), states (I translate the German): 


‘“The same [Profession of Faith] is found in a Letter which 
Arius, in the name of a number of his friends and conjointly with 
them, sent some time in the year 321, from Nicomedia to Alexander, 
the Bishop of Alexandria, in order that he might come to an agree- 
ment again with him where it might be possible.’’ 


It looks much more like an artful, but uncompromising and 
open declaration of war against the Divinity of Christ, and, by con- 
sequence, against Christ’s command to worship God alone, Matt. iv., 


10. Epiphanius, as we see below, deemed it worse than the above 
letter. 


It is found in the fullest form in St. Epiphanius Oz //eresies, 
Heresy LXIX., Sections 7 and 8. It is found also in Section 16 of 
St. Athanasius Ox the Council held at Ariminum, tn Italy, and that at 
Seleucia, in Isauria, and is rendered, most of it, into English, in the 
Oxford translation. It is given in the second edition of Hahn’s 
Bibliothek der Symbole, pages 188-189. I have followed mainly 
Hahn’s text, but where he has not given all of it I have followed 
Epiphanius, as above. I have deemed Newman’s translation mis- 


taken in two or more places, and have preferred another rendering in 
them. 


Epiphanius, after mentioning the letter above of Arius to Euse- 
bius, brings in the following epistle, with these words : 


‘‘But we subjoin another letter, also written from Nicomedia to 
the most holy Pope, Alexander, by way of defence, forsooth, and 


184 Chapter 717. 


worse again, for it is filled full of the blasphemous words of his con- 
tinual poison-darting, and it was sent off by him to Alexandria’’ 
(204). 

Athanasius, in his work above mentioned, Section 16, intro- 
duces it as follows: 


‘And moreover what they wrote by letter to the blessed Alex- 
ander, the Bishop, is as follows: 


«(ς Ty our blessed Father and Bishop, Alexander, the presbyters and 
the deacons wish joy tn the Lord. 


“ΓΟ αἵ faith from our forefathers, which we have learned from 
thee also, blessed Father (205) is this: 


““<«We acknowledge one God, alone Ungenerated, alone Eternal, 
alone without a beginning, alone real God, who alone has immortality, 
is alone wise, alone good, alone Sovereign, alone Judge [of all] (206). 
Controller, Manager, Immutable, and Inconvertible into anything 
else, just and good, and Heis the God of the Law and of the 
Prophets and of the New Testement: who generated a Sole-Born 
Son before world-times (207), through whom He has made both the 


(204). Epiphanius oz Heresy LXIX., that of the driomantacs, Section 7. 


(205). Greek, Μακαρίῳ Πάπᾳ; that is ‘‘ Wost Blessed Pope.’’ Father in old 
times was the title of all Bishops; but in later ages in the untranslated and 
altered form, /ofe is unwisely, in Western lands, generally confined to the 
Bishop of Rome, though in the Anglican confirmation service the Bishop is 
called Father. Sophocles, in his Greek Lexicon, under the term πάπας, defines 
it as follows: ‘‘Papa, father, a title given to bishops in general, and to those 
of Alexandria and Rome in particular.’’ He gives a number of references there 
on it to old Christian writers. Seealso Bingham’s Antiquities, Book II., Chap- 
ter ii., Section 7, to much the same effect. In the form παπᾶς it is used among 
the Greeks for presbyters, as Sophocles shows under that word; and among the 
Latins, in the form /adher, it is used for them, and so among a few Anglicans. 


(206). The words ‘‘ofal/”’ are in Epiphanius, not Athanasius. 


(207). Newman here renders, ‘‘ before eternal times,’’ but that is manifestly 
wrong, because (1) Arius, in the very Confession above, shows that he did not be- 
lieve in the doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son, and ‘‘ before eternal 
times’? seems to mean that. The Greek is πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων. It is true that 
αἰώνιος does often mean efernal, but as Liddell and Scott, in their Greek Lexicon, 
show under that word it sometimes means what relates to the world, as for ex- 
ample, in their quotation from Herodian, αἰώνιοι béa1.—ludi seculares, games for 
the world, or worldly games. So the Latin equivalent saecularis was sometimes 


used as is shown under saecu/aris in Harpers’ Latin Dictionary for what is. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 185 


worlds and all things ; and generated Him uot in [mere] seeming [so 
to do] but in reality; and made Him subordinate to His own will 
(208), [to be] an immutable, an inconvertible, and perfect creature of 
God, but not as one of the creatures; a thing generated, but not as 
one of the things generated; and that Generated Thing of the Father 
is not an Issue [out of the Father] though Valentinus asserted that asa 
dogma; nor do we hold Manichaeus’ innovation that a Generated Thing 
is a same-substance Part of the Father; nor do we hold, like Sabel- 
lius, who separated the Monad of Divinity and asserted [the doctrine: 
of ] a Son-Father (209), nor, like Hieracas, do we hold [to the doc- 
trine that] He is Lamp from Lamp, nor that one Torch-light has been 
divided into two: nor that He who existed before was generated 
or created into a Son besides; as thou thyself also, blessed Father, 
in the midst of the church and in [the] Session (210) hast often for- 
bidden those who brought in those errors; but, as we assert, He was 
created by the will of the Father before times (211) and before the 


worldly, secular, what pertains to this world. Moreover (2), ¢7me did not exist 
before the world was made. Furthermore (3), Arius, in the above Confession, 
uses av for world, and (4) it is used in that sense plainly in the Creed of the 
Second Ecumenical Council. (5), As is shown in the fourth note below, the 
words, γωόνοις αἰωνίοις, are translated in King James’ English Version, ‘‘sizce 
the world began,v not “since eternal times.” They evidently mean, “17 world 
times,’ and their sense is well given by the rendering in our English Version. 
So, exactly the same expression of Arius’ Confession, πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, is found 
in II. Timothy 1., 9, and its literal sense of ‘‘ before world-times”’ is preserved, 
in effect, in the King James’ Version, in the words, “‘ defore the world began.” 


(208). The Greek is, ὑποστήσαντα δὲ ἰδίῳ Θελήματι, ἀτρεπτον, etc. Newman 
has, ‘‘ and made Him subsist at His own will unalterable,” etc., which may be 
correct, but as the expression may be translated either so or as above, it seems. 
doubtful. 

(209). ‘That is, the Sabellians said that the Son is the same Person as the 
Father, and the Father the same Person as the Son. 


(210), Probably the meeting of the Bishop with his presbyters, deacons, and 
perhaps clergy lower than deacon, in which he instructed them in their duties, 
gave them his orders, etc. The Greek is ἐν συνεδρίῳ. 


(211). Greek, πρὸ χρόνων καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων κτισθέντα, that is, He was created be- 
fore time began and before the worlds were made. As time began when the 
worlds were made, so it ends with the end of the world; Rev. x., 6. Compare 
the Greek of Romans xvi., 25, and of II. Timothy i., 9. In Romans xvi., 25, 
χρόνοις αἰωνίοις is rendered in the Common Version, and well, by ‘“‘stuce the 
world began’? (literally, it is, ‘‘ 22 world times,’’ that is during the time of this 


186 Chapter ITT, 


worlds, and has received both life and being from the Father, and 
the Father put under Him as well as under Himself the dignities 
(212). For the Father in giving Him the inheritance of all things 
did not deprive Himself of those things which He has ingenerately 
in Himself (213): for He is the Fountain of all things, so that there 
are Three Subsistences (214). And God, being the Cause of all 
things, was without beginning and utterly Sole; but the Son was 
generated before time began by the Father and was created and 
founded before the worlds. He was not before He was generated, 
but having been generated before time and before all things, He 
alone existed under the Father. For He is not eternal, or co-eternal 
or co-unmade (215) with the Father: nor has He existed as long as 


world, and in II. Timothy 1., 9, πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων (literally, ‘‘ before world- 


dimes’) is well translated by ‘‘before the world began.’’ Compare the note 
fourth above. 


(212). Greek, καὶ τὰς δόξας συνυπυστήσαντος αὐτῷ Tov Watpéc. Newman, in the 
Oxford translation of St. Athanasius’ 7reafises Against Arianism, page 98, 
renders it, ‘‘ Zhe Father who gave subsistence to His glories, together with 
Flim.’ But I prefer to take τὰς δόξας in the sense of ‘‘ dignities,” as in Judei., 
8, in the passage, ‘‘and speak evil of dignities”’ (δόξαι). The meaning is that 
the Father gave the Son dominion over angels and all crented dignities. That 
is the teaching of Scripture, as in Hebrews i., 6, etc., and best agrees with what 
immediately follows the above in Arius’ Confession. 


(213). That is, those prerogatives of rule over created dignities and all 
other things, for these prerogatives, Arius means, inhere in the very Nature of 
the Father, and are not a production and grant to Him in time, or just before 
time. 

(214). Greek as in Hahn’s text, ὥστε τρεῖς εἰσι ὑποστάσεις. The word ὑπόστασις, 
means subsistence, that is beng, and also substance; and from the sense of being 
passed into the sense of /erson in Christian writers. But no Christian writer 
would say ‘‘ There are three substances,”’ but ‘only one substance’? of which each 
Hypostasis, that is Person, formed part. See Suicer under ὑπόστασις where we 
see how the ancient Latins who took that term in the sense of swdstance shunned 
the expression of Orthodox writers, ‘‘ There are three Hypostases”’ (τρεῖς iroaracerc), 
because they took it to mean, ‘‘ 7here are three substances.’? Suicer shows how- 
ever that the difficulty disappeared when the Orthodox Greek writers explained 
that they did not mean to deny that the whole Trinity are but one Substance, 
but that they took Hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) in the sense of Person. The Greeks 
and the Latins finally came to use both those terms in the same sense as they do 
still. Arius, on the contrary, held that there are 7hree different Substances: 
and that two of them, the Son and the Spirit are creatures. As to the Arian 
belief on the Spirit see Athanasius as quoted below. 


(215). Epiphanius, on Heresy LXIX., Section 8, has here συναγέννητος, 
*‘co-ungenerated,’’ not co-unmade,’’ συναγένητος, but as Arius takes the generation 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 187 


the Father has, as some assert as to their relations, [thus] bringing 
in two ungenerated Origins (216), but as God was [at first] the Sole 
‘One and the Origin of all things, so He was before all things. And 
therefore He was before the Son, as we have also learned from thee 
when thou wast preaching in the midst of the Church. Inasmuch 
therefore as He has from God His being and His glories and His life, 
and inasmuch as all things have been delivered to Him, in that 
sense, God is his Origin (217). For He began Him (218) as being 
His God and as being before Him. 


But if the expression ‘out of Him’ (219), and the expression 
‘out of the belly’ (220), and the expression ‘/ came out of the Father 
and am come’ (221), be understood by any persons to mean that the 
Son is a same-substance Part of Him and that He is an Issue (222), 
[out of the Father] it will follow, according to their notion, that the 
Father is put together and separable and mutable and a body ; and, so 
far as they can bring it to pass, the God who is without a body will 
suffer those things which belong toa body. I pray that thou mayest 
be strong in the Lord, blessed Father. 


of the Word to mean His being created, both expressions according to his heresy 
mean the same thing. 


(216). That is Two ungenerated First Principles of all things, that is Two 
‘Sources, Two Beginners, that is Two Originators of all things; and not one only. 


(217). That is, His Originator, ἀρχὴ αὐτοῦ. 


(218). Greek, “Apyer yap αὐτοῦ, Newman renders it, in the Oxford transla- 
tion of S. Athanasius’ 7yveatises Against Arianism, page 98, ‘‘ For He ts above 
Him.’ But the translation which I have given seems to me to agree better with 
Arius’ context, and what we know of his heretical ideas as to the Son being a 
‘creature of the Father. 


(219). Greek, ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Arius seems to refer to John viii., 42, ἐγὼ yap ἐκ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ; ἐξῆλθον Kai ἥκω, literally, ‘‘ Hor 7 came out of God, and am come,’ and to 
John xvi., 28, ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον, literally, “ 7 came 
out of the Father, and have come into the world.” 


(220). The Greek Septuagint Version of Psalm cix., 3, (Psalm cx., 3, in the 
English Version), ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ Ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά σε, literally, “7 brought thee 
forth out of the belly before the morning star”’ [was made]. 

(221). Arius seems to quote here from memory only, and to mix up John 
viii., 42, and John xvi., 28. See them in the note last but one above. 


(222). Greek, ὡς μέρος αὐτοῦ ὁμοουσίου καὶ ὡς προβολή. 


188 Chapter 771. 


Arius, 

Aeithales, 

Achillas, 

Carpones, 

Sarmatas, 

Arius, [who are] presbyters. 


[The] deacons, 
Euzoius, 
Lucius, 
Julius, 
Menas, 
Helladius, 
Gaius. 
[The] Bzshops, 
Secundus, of Pentapolis, 
Theonas, a Libyan, 
Pistus, [whom the Arians ordained for Alexandria]. 


The last six words, which I have bracketed, must, I think, be an 
addition by way of explanation made by St. Epiphanius, or by some 
other, for according to Gammack’s article ‘‘ Pisfus,’’ in Smith and 
Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, Pistus was not made 
Bishop of Alexandria till A. D. 336, 337 or 338, and therefore not 
till long after this document. 


REMARKS ON ARIUS’ CONFESSION. 


From the above it is clear, 


1. That Arius made the Son to be a Creature, thought he ad- 
mitted and thought that He was generated, which he evidently takes 
to mean, He was created, before the worlds were made, and so before 
world-time began. Indeed he expressly confesses in this document 
that the Father made the worlds and all things through Him. 


The doétrine of the Ante-Nicene Fathers that the Word is an 
issue (προβολή) out of the Father just before the worlds he slanderously 
compares to a Valentinian myth, which is not Christian at all, and 
which has nothing in common with the Christian do¢trine of the issue 
of the Logos, co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father, out of 
Him. Newman shows, in a note on page 97 of his English transla- 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 189 


tion of S. Athanasius’ 7yeatises Against Arianism, that the Arian 
Asterius thought that ‘‘zssae’’ (προβολή) conveys the idea of a bring- 
ing forth of a child (τεχνογονία). But some, or most, of the ancients, 
as will be shown in a Dissertation elsewhere in this series Ox Eternal 
Birth, did believe that the eternal Logos was born out of the Father’s 
mouth just before all the worlds, and so understood Ecclesiasticus 
xxiv., 3, to teach and followed it. I quote it: 


“7 [Wisdom] came out of the mouth of the Most High, and, 
like a mist, I covered the earth.’ On Texts of Scripture, in a special 
Dissertation elsewhere in this series, I have shown that St. Cyprian, 
Bishop of Carthage from A. D. 248 to 258, when he died a martyr for 
Christ; Lactantius, who wrote in the first half of the fourth century ; 
and St. Phaebadius, Bishop of Agen in Gaul, who flourished in the 
last half of the same century; all take that text to mean that the 
Logos was born out of the Father’s mouth just before the worlds 
were made. 


In the same Dissertation I have shown that ancient writers take 
the words of Psalm xliv., 1, in the Septuagint Version, to mean that 
the Father ‘‘delched’’ the eternal Logos; and that naturally implies 
that the Logos was delched out of the Father’s mouth. For that is 
the only opening that we know of in his body of Spirit. So Tertul- 
lian, of Century II. and III.; Novatian, the Schismatic of Century 
III., who was however Orthodox on the Trinity; St. Cypian, Bishop of 
Carthage A. D. 248-258, (compare his testimony on Ecclesiasticus 
xxiv., 3, above referred to); St. Victorinus, Bishop of Petau, who 
is believed to have died a martyr for Christ in the Diocletian persecu- 
tion A. D. 303-313; Lactantius, in the first half of the fourth cen- 
tury; Phaebadius, Bishop of Agen in Gaul, who flourished in the 
last half of the fourth century; all understood Psalm xliv., I, in 
the Septuagint to teach that the Father Jbelched the Logos, which 
implies that he Je/ched Him out of His mouth. Indeed, St. Cyprian, 
Lactantius, and St. Phaebadius, as has been said above, expressly 
teach that the Father belched the Logos out of His mouth. See 
their remarks on Ecclesiasticus xxiv., 3, quoted in the Déssertateon 
above specified. 

And that seems to have been the belief of all the ancient writers 
whom I have quoted in that Dissertation on the Septuagint of Psalm 
-xxxiii., 6, and on Psalm cix., 3, except mainly or wholly the writers 


190 Chapter 711 


of Alexandria and its jurisdiction, in Africa, who did not believe that’ 
God has any body; nor, consequently any mouth at all. For quite 
a number of the ancient Christian writers believed that God the 
Father has a body, according to the common and uniform representa-- 
tions of Him in Scripture, but of course a body, as Tertullian writes, 
of Spirit, not a body of flesh with its digestive and procreative organs. 
And that view can not, I think, be said to have been condemned in: 
any of the Six Ecumenical Councils. But I treat of that topic else- 
where on Nicaea in a special Dissertation which I hope soon to: 
publish. 

Having said thus much on the Arian Asterius’ objection to the 
Orthodox doé¢trine that the Logos was born out of the Father, as. 
stated by Newman in the note above mentioned, let me add on the 
other hand, that Newman shows in the same note that Tertullian 
used the term Jssve, of the Logos, with a protest against the Valen- 
tinian sense, and that Justin, the martyr, also used the word ‘‘ /ssze,”’ 
of the Logos; and that Gregory of Nazianzus made a similar use of 
it by calling the Father προβαλεὺς, of the Holy Spirit, that is, the One 
who caused the Holy Spirit to zsswe. He well adds, ‘‘ Arius intro- 
duces the word [/sswe] here as an argumentum ad invidiam,’’ and 
refers on that point to Hilary Ox the Trinity V1., 9. See the refer- 
ences to those writers in that note of Newnian’s. 


So Arius, in the same malignant and crafty and deceptive spirit: 
of wickedness, compares, just below, the Christian doctrine of the 
birth of the Consubstantial Logos out of the Father to a Manichaean 
myth, which is Anti-Scriptural and Anti-Christian, and which has 
nothing in common with the Christian doctrine of the birth of the Con- 
substantial and Co-eternal Word out of the Father; and so, like the 
Valentinian comparison above, and that of the Manichaean Hieracas. 
below, it is not at all pertinent to the case. 

Next he brings in the Sabellian doctrine, that the Son is the 
same Person as the Father, which is not pertinent to the discussion 
between himself and the Orthodox Alexander, because no Orthodox 
man entertains that heresy. 

Then, in the same Spirit of malignity, Arius brings in the doc- 
trine of the Manichaean Hieracas of a light froma light, or the 
dividing of a torch light, a blazing fagot, for instance, into two. But 
neither Alexander nor any other Orthodox man held that Manichaean 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 191 


error. Manichaeanism, with its two Eternal Principles, Good and 
Evil, was polytheistic, and sternly reje¢ted the Orthodox doctrine of 
the Eternal Divinity of the Logos as much as Arianism did, and was 
firmly Anti- Trinitarian and Anti-Christian. 


Then at last, after so many invidious and not pertinent com- 
parisons, Arius comes to one that is. Now he leaves Heresies which. 
were held by none of the Orthodox, and comes to a doctrine which 
the majority of the Ante-Nicene writers did hold; all, according to 
Newman himself, except the Alexandrian School, namely, that the 
co-eternal and consubstantial Logos, who was within the Father from 
all eternity, was born out of Him just before the worlds were made, 
and to make them, though Arius, after his malignant fashion of mis- 
representing, speaks of it as the doctrine that ‘‘ He who exisled before, 
was afterwards generated or created up into a Son besides,’’ from which 
we may infer that he was acquainted with the doctrine of St. Justin 
the Martyr and of St. Theophilus of Antioch, that the co-eternal 
Logos of the Father, Axdiathetic, that is, zzside the Father, became 
Prophoric, that is, Borne Forth by birth out of Him just before the 
worlds were made. His way of describing that birth as a creating up 
znto a Son besides, might lead us to suppose that some of the Ortho- 
dox, with whose views he had become acquainted, understood the 
Κύριος ἔχτισέ με, ‘‘ The Lord Created (or ‘budlt’) me’’ of Prov. viii., 22, 
in the Septuagint, to mean that just before the worlds were made, the 
Father made His co-eternal Logos a Son when He brought Him forth 
out of Himself. ‘Tertullian, as elsewhere quoted, in the Dissertation 
On Eternal Birth, held that view. 


Arius then goes on to state that Alexander, the Bishop of 
Alexandria, had often in the midst of the Church, and in the Session, 
of his lower clergy, seemingly denounced not only the view of 
Valentinus which he has just mentioned, and that of Manichaeus, and 
that of Sabellius and that of Hieracas, but also, seemingly at first 
sight, that of all the Orthodox out of Alexandria and its jurisdiction, 
namely, that the co-eternal and consubstantial Logos was not born 
out of the Father just before the worlds were made and to make them, 
and so became a Son by that birth; but that He was eternally born 
out of the Father and so was eternally the Son. If this inference be 
correct, we may conclude that Alexander had gotten his opinion of 
Eternal Generation from a noted man of the Alexandrian School, 


10. Chapter LIT. 


Origen, or at least that he adopted Origen’s view, and that he main- 
tained it, and that Athanasius and Cyril, his successors, in that see, in 
doing the same, simply followed the traditions of that School. 


Yet there is a very important clause farther on in this Confesston 
which seems to throw doubt on those inferences, for Arius asserts 
that he had learned from Alexander’s preaching in the midst of the 
church that the Father was before the Son, which seems irreconcilable 
with the notion that Alexander believed in the do¢trine of the Son’s 
Eternal Birth. Yet Arius may only mean to charge on Alexander 
that he had contradicted himself: for in a document written after his 
expulsion from Alexandria, but before this, that is his Epistle to 
Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, he expressly accuses Alexander of 
Alexandria, his former Bishop, of holding to the co-eternity of the 
Son as Son with the Father. Or he may mean to accuse him of 
having formerly held Arian views on those themes, though a heretic 
excommunicated is not always a reliable witness against the man 
who excommunicated him. Besides if Alexander did at any time 
hold heretical views against God the Son’s Divinity, he certainly got 
rid of them and made a firm champion for them at the outset of the 
Arian controversy and excommunicated their chief propagator, the 
arch-heretic Arius himself. 


We see, 2, from the above Confession, that al/ the Arian worship 
of the Son was the worship of a creature, and consequently that on 
their own showing they were creature-worshippers: and that is con- 
trary to Christ’s own fundamental law in Matthew iv., 10, ‘‘ Thou 
shalt bow to the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve.’ 


And, 3, that inasmuch as they had two Gods, one the Father 
uncreated and eternal, and because uncreated and eternal, therefore a 
superior God; and another, the Son, created and non-eternal, and 
because created and non-eternal, therefore an 7ferior God; they were, 
therefore, POLYTHEISTS, for polytheist means any and every one who 
has more gods than one. 


Hence they held to the two fundamental errors of paganism, and, 
as Athanasius taught, were to be regarded as heathens, and not as 
Christians. 


4. In passing, though it is anticipating events in the century 
next following, I would say that the principle contained in St. Cyril of 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils 193 


—_ 


Alexandria’s Anathema VIII., which, in God’s name,-and in strict 
accordance with the use of the Anathema in Galatians i., 8, 9, against 
perversions of the Gospel and against new-fangled Gospels, curses, 
that is, anathematizes the Nestorians for giving the name God to a 
creature, that is, toa man, would apply to the Arians, for they re- 
garded the Son as a creature, and yet called him God. 


5. From the latter part of the Confession of Arius we see that 
the Orthodox had met Arius with texts which teach as in the Sep- 
tuagint, and in the New Testament, the doctrine that the Logos was 
born out of the Father. 


They evidently understood in that sense the words, ‘‘ out of” in 
the Septuagint of Psalm cix., 3, ‘‘Z drought thee forth out of the belly” 
(gx γαστρὸς); the ‘‘out of God’ in the expression in John vVili., 42, 
“ Tcame out of God”? (3x τοῦ 020d ἐξήλθον); and the same words, ** out 
of,’ in John xvi., 28, in the passage, ‘J came out of the Father,” 
(βξῆλθον ἐχ τοῦ Πατρός). Ἐ , 

The Greek word ἐχ does primarily mean owt of, and is so defined 
in Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon of A. D. 1850, (Har- 
pers, New York), and in the ‘Sixth Edition, Revised and Aug- 
mented, Oxford,’ A.D. 1869; whereas απὸ, another Greek preposi- 
tion, means ‘‘from,’’ that is, from che outside of any thing. And so 
all those expressions of Holy Writ which speak of the Son as having 
come out of (x) the Father, were understood by the Orthodox to 
refer to His birth owt of the Father. 


Arius, following the notion of Origen, then prevalent in the 
Alexandrian School among the leaders of both parties, the Orthodox 
and the Arians, that God the Father has no body for the Logos to 
come out of, advances that notion asareply. « 

But it is no reply, for a large part of the Church held, as the 
masses in all communions do still, that God the Father has a body. 
That was the teaching of some of the Ante-Nicene writers. I show 
that in a Dissertation on that topic in another part of this series, and 
I have referred to some of them above also. Indeed, the indignation 
of the Egyptian monks, who seem to have been the great bulk of 
their order there, against even Theophilus, their Patriarch, when 
they supposed he meant to favor Origen’s view, and his submission 
to them, proves the strength in the early part of the fourth century, 
even in Egypt, of the view that the Father has a body, and the 


194 Chapter ITI. 
-ωμ-.΄'΄.'--.-..-Ἐ-.ςςςςς. 
weakness of the view that He has not. This is clear from the 
account of the event as given by Socrates and Sozomen, both of 
whom, as their statements on it show, were Incorporealists and 
Origenists on that matter, and were so prejudiced as Constantinopoli- 
tans against Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, for his course against 
John, Bishop of Constantinople, that they do not seem capable of 
doing him justice; so that they accuse him of deceiving the monks, 
who were angered against him for denying that God has a body. 
Thus, for instance, in his account in Chapter 7, Book VI., of his. 
Ecclesiastical History, of the disobedience of the four Long Monks, as 
they were termed, Discorus (or ‘‘ Dioscorus ’’), and his three brothers, 
Ammonius (or ‘‘Ammon’’), Eusebius and Euthymius, to their 
patriarch Theophilus, who had been so kind as to make Discorus 
Bishop of Hermopolis, in Egypt, and two others of them clergymen, 
and gave them the management of Ecclesiastical affairs; Socrates 
asperses, after his unwise wont when speaking of Theophilus, his 
motives, and faults him for simply doing his duty. For, contrary to 
the Canons, they withdrew themselves from Church-work, where their 
services were needed, to live the lazy and useless life of the desert, 
contrary to the Spirit of Christ’s prayer to His Father xo? to take his 
disciples out of the world, but to keep them from the evil (John xvii., 
15). They left Christ’s sin-beset sheep to be torn by the wolf, and 
fled away in their utter selfishness. Their Archbishop, Theophilus, 
like a true shepherd, warned them to come back to their bounden 
duty, but they were rebellious, and refused. Their evil example 
might become infectious, and others might be led to shirk their 
duties as well, and to desert their posts. The only reason given by 
the four Zall Brothers, according to Socrates in the same chapter, 
was childish enough, namely, that Theophilus was devoted to gain 
and to the acquisition of wealth, and that they feared that his ex- 
ample would be injurious to their souls, and that they greatly pre- 
ferred solitude to living in the city. But were such a set of lazy 
fanatics fit judges of their patriarch? And, if any rational cause for 
accusation existed, could they not have called him to account by an 
appeal to the whole Church? And what right had they to leave the 
active work of Christ in the city and to flee to the lazy solitude of the 
desert? One of them, according to the notice of him by Smith, in 
Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, must have been 
a decidedly poor stick to judge anybody ; for in order to escape being 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 195 


made a bishop he had cut off one of his ears! ! ! (223). In other 
words, he had marred his body, a sin akin to that of marring 
another part of the body, which the First Ecumenical Synod, in its 
Canon I., had condemned, for both are different forms of the same 
sin; that is, of mutilating the image of God in man, which is really 
a part-suicide. Besides their rebellion, they had fallen into what St. 
Epiphanius and Theophilus and the monks deemed the error of deny- 
ing that God has a body. Up to that, even according to the bilious 
account of Socrates, their Patriarch had been very patient with them. 
According to Bohn’s translation here, 


‘“He earnestly begged them not to leave him,’’ (Socrates’ Hecle- 
stastical Ffistory, Book VI., Chapter 7). 


He could, as their superior officer, have deposed and excommuni- 
cated, but he forbore. Finally when they left him, and like cowards 
and fanatics, forsook their proper work and their duty, and betook 
themselves as rebels to the desert to raise a row for him, and to dis- 
turb the Church, he proceeds to check them. He had at last to. 
fault and to correct them, as their Archbishop, on dogma. For the 
Origenist Socrates, in the same chapter as in Bohn’s translation here, 
states of him: 


‘“He well knew that Discorus and his brothers, in their theological 
discussions with him, had often maintained that the Deity was incor- 
poreal, and by no means had a human form; because, they argued, such 
a constitution would involve the necessary accompaniment of human 
passions, as Origen and other ancient writers have demonstrated.”’ 


Aye, there is the root of it all. They were followers of the here- 
tic Origen, and had drawn from him their idea that God has no body. 
Blunt, under Anthropomorphites, inhis Dictionary of Sects, etc., shows 
that Origen had opposed an older and opposite view that God has a 
body, which was the teaching of Melito and of Tertullian. 


Besides the Four 7 Brothers were poor in their knowledge of 
facts. It is true that human passions do belong to our fallen human 
bodies of flesh and bone. But no wise man holds to the blasphemy 
that the Father’s body is of flesh or bone, but is of Spirit as Tertullian 


(223). Socrates’ Eccl. Hist., Book IV., Chapter 23. See the article ‘‘Am- 
monius (I.)’’ in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, and the 
authorities there mentioned. 


196 Chapter ITT. 


puts it (224), that is, of Divisiity, and is therefore free from all human 
passions. 


After all this, Theophilus does what he might have done before 
with such a rebellious Suffragan and with such rebellious clerics who 
had deserted their posts, and, judging even from Socrates and Sozo- 
men’s accounts, were stirring up trouble for him and the church and 
were spreading what he deemed fanaticism and error. He uses force 
when persuasion and and entreaty avail not, and drives these deserters 
out of his jurisdiction. A considerable time after, they were to submit 
to him, after making him much trouble at Constantinople. They had 
committed the grievous crime of appealing to secular judges, and 
even to a woman, the erring Empress Eudoxia, against their own 
Bishop (225). 

The superstition and folly of that age sometimes made heroes 
out of such disgraces to the monastic profession, such deserters as 
three of them were from their posts of clerical duty. But Theophilus 
was not a monk of their stripe, but a common-sense, God-fearing 
one who has been much misunderstood and maligned asto the merits of 
the quarrel between himself and John, who was afterwards called 
Chrysostom. Of that I will speak elsewhere in this series, if God will. 
Now, after long patience, he acts. 


Socrates, in chapter 7, Book VI., of his Zcclesiastical Hizstory, as 
in Bohn’s translation, says of Theophilus, that 
‘‘Sending letters to the monasteries in the desert, he advises them 


not to give heed either to Discorus or his brothers, inasmuch as they 
affirmed that God had not a body. 


«ς ὁ Whereas,’ says he, ‘the Sacred Scripture testifies that God has 
eyes, ears, hands and feet, as men have, the partisans of Discorus, being 
followers of Origen, introduce the blasphemous dogma that God_has 
neither eyes, ears, feet, nor hands.’”? 

Socrates goes on to state that some of the monks still adhered to 
Discorus and Origen, and praises them for so doing; but he admits 
that those who held the view that God has a body greatly exceeded 


(224). See Tertullian as quoted in my Dissertation on J/anformism, that is 
Anthropomorphism, to be published, if God will, in this series. 

(225). Socrates’ Eccl. Hist., vi.,9. Sozomen’s Eccl. Hist. viii., 13, 14 
and 15. 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 197 


Dioscorus and the Anti-Body party zz zumber, but this Origenist and 
perhaps Novatian abuses them for that opinion. 

He goes on to state that the monks who held that God the 
Father has a body, raised an outcry against the Anti-Corporealists, 
branded them as ‘‘zmpzous,’’? and termed them ‘‘ Origenists,’ and 
that they, on the contrary, termed them Axthropomorphites, that is 
Manformites, and that altercation and inextinguishable war arose be- 
tween the two parties ; but that Theophilus, on learning how matters 
stood, went with a multitude of persons to Nitra, where the monas- 
teries were, and armed the monks against Discorus and his brethren, 
which would imply that the latter would not leave peaceably, though 
disowned as ‘“‘impious’’ heretics by the great majority of their 
fellow-monks, but insisted on inflicting their presence on them. 
Socrates adds that Discorus and his Anti-Body adherents were then 
in danger of their lives, and made their escape with difficulty, 
which shows how the opinion that God has no body was viewed 
by the great majority of the monks of his own country about A. D. 
401. Sozomen gives a similar account. 

I should prefer to believe that Theophilus, whatever he may 
have thought at first, did then really believe as he himself asserts, 
that ‘‘ Zhe Sacred Scripture testifies that God has eyes, ears, hands, 
and feet, as men have.’’ A note on page 389 of Bohn’s translation of 
Sozomen’s Zcclestastical History, referring to Socrates’ account of the 
expulsion of this Discorus or Dioscorus and the Anti-body party, states, 

“Socrates gives the same account; but, like Sozomen, he sup- 
presses the reason: viz., that Theophilus had convened an Episco- 
pal Synod at Alexandria, and had condemned Ammonius and his 
brethren as followers of Origen.”’ 

Jerome, as we are informed in Smith’s article, ‘““Ammonzus,”’ in 
Smith and Wace’s Diétionary of Christian Biography, deemed the 
condemnation of Dioscorus and his brothers to be merited. 

Smith refers to Jerome’s Zp. ad Alex., in proof. 

The events which followed, notwithstanding the glaringly unfair 
and slanderous perversion of ‘Theophilus’ motives, by Socrates and 
Sozomen, prove that he maintained his vigor against the view that 
God has no body. For, whereas before, he had blamed St. Epipha- 
nius for asserting that God has a human form (226), he now, ‘‘As if 
repentant,”’ (to quote the translation of Bohn, in Chapter XIV. of 


(226.) Sozomen’s Ecclesiastical History, Book VIII., Chapter 14. 


198 Chapter 111 


Book VIII., of Sozomen’s £cclestastical History), “οἵ having ever 
entertained any other sentiment’’ [than that God has a body] ‘‘ wrote 
to Epiphanius to acquaint him, that he now held the same opinions 
as himself, and to condemn the works of Origen, whence he had 
drawn his former hypothesis.”’ 


Then the difference between the believer that God has a body, 
St. Epiphanius, and Theophilus, is removed, for Theophilus openly 
espouses the belief of St. Epiphanius. Now all is clear, and Sozomen 
at once proceeds, as in Bohn, 


‘‘Epiphanius had long regarded the writings of Origen with 
peculiar aversion, and was therefore easily led to attach credit to the 
epistle of Theophilus. He soon after assembled the Bishops of Cyprus 
together, and prohibited the perusal of the books of Origen. He 
also wrote to the other Bishops, and, among others, to the Bishop of 
Constantinople’’ [John], ‘‘exhorting them to issue similar prohibitions. 
Theophilus, perceiving that there could be no danger in following the 
example of Epiphanius, whose exalted virtues were universally 
appreciated and reverenced, assembled the Bishops of his province, 
and enacted a similar decree. John, on the other hand, paid little 
attention to the letters of Epiphanius and Theophilus.”’ 


John, as his course showed, was himself an Incorporealist; and 
had gone so far as to do the uncanonical act of receiving men who 
had been expelled by a brother Bishop not of his jurisdiction. Socrates, 
in his Ecclesiastical History, Book VI., Chapter X., witnesses to the 
fact that Theophilus had ‘‘ accused’’ Epiphanius, as Bohn’s translation 
words it, ‘‘of entertaining low thoughts of God, by supposing him to 
have a human form,’’ and that as a result they had been at variance, 
but that now he wrote to him, and professsd to agree with him on 
that matter, though Socrates with his bitter Origenist feelings gives 
Theophilus no credit for sincerity, and then testifies to the fact that 
Epiphanius gathered the Bishops of Cyprus, his jurisdiction, and that 
he and they passed a decree prohibiting the reading of Origen’s works: 
and that Theophilus assembled a great number of Bishops of his 
jurisdi@tion in Synods, which pronounced a like sentence on the 
writings of Origen; but that John, Bishop of Constantinople, refused 
to cooperate with them. 


Socrates in Book VI., Chapter XII., of his zstory, praises Theoti- 
mus Bishop of Scythia, for refusing to join with some other Bishops then 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 199 


at Constantinople, and with St. Epiphanius in condemning Origen's 
works; and in Chapter XIII., of the same Book VI., Socrates makes 
a labored defence of Origen. Theotimus is represented in Bohn’s 
translation of Chapter XII. of that book as making the radical asser- 

tion, “1 know of no evil doctrine contained in Origen’s Books.”’ ; 


Yet, in the sequel, Epiphanius’ and Theophilus’ judgment of that 
heretic was vindicated by the Catholic Church. 


For Origen, after all the disputes regarding him, was condemned 
in Anathema XI. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and some of his 
writings are there branded as ‘‘zmpious.”’ 


To return to the question whether God has a body. 


Those who opposed the view that He has, may be divided into 
two classes, 


1. Those who while opposing the blasphemy that God has 
digestive and genital organs, nevertheless have admitted some shape 
or form in God. St. Cyril of Alexandria is deemed by Blunt in his 
article Anxthropomorphites, to belong to that class, and his uncle, St. 
Theophilus, Bishop of that see, seems to have been of it also. On 
Ephesus we shall treat as to how far this view was approved by it. 


2. The out and out and thoroughly radical Incorporealists like 
Augustine of Hippo, who seem to abolish all shape and form in God, 
and to leave us what comes too near to no God at all, though he 
would deny that. Yet his misty utterances would seem to reduce 
God to a cloud or vapor or the air. 


Both those classes are often confounded. ‘The first class, if they 
accept the language of Theophilus above quoted, do really hold toa 
body. 

Blunt is of no authority, however, so far as his mere ofzzons are 
concerned, for he was a Mariolater, as his article on J/ariolatry in 
his Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology shows. His re- 
marks in the article on ‘‘ /conoclasm’’ in the same work show a too 
partial leaning to the side of the idolatrous party, and his article 
“< Tconoclasts,’’ shows an utter lack of appreciation of the doctrine of 
the Homily Against Peril of Idolatry that Image-worship brought 
God’s ire on the Church. 

His works should be expurgated. They are dangerous. The 
great Alexandrians, St. Athanasius and St. Cyril, and notably 


200 Chapter 711. 


Augustine of Hippo in the West, have made some kinds of the No- 
Body view the more common, but contrary (A), to the plainest pas- 
sages of Holy Writ; (B), of early Christian writers, and (C), the plain. 
sense of the two Ecumenical Creeds. For the Nicene teaches that 
the Son was ‘‘ born out of the Father, that zs out of the substance of 
the Father;’’ and the Constantinopolitan says that the Son was ‘‘ dor 
out of the Father before all the worlds.’? And the Logos is of the 
same substance with the Father because He was born out of Him. 

Besides the No-Body view leaves us no definite thing to pray 
to in the way of Divinity, not the Father for instance as sitting on a 
throne in heaven, as we are taught in Revelations IV., 2, and in 
Daniel VII., 9, where His ‘‘head’’ and his ‘‘hazr’’ are specified, but a 
mist, a vapor, a cloud, a nothing: and what is that but to attempt to 
abolish the Father and His worship altogether? Whatever a few 
so-called philosophic theologians may have said, the masses of Christians 
ever have prayed to the Father as in a body as He is represented in 
Scripture, and ever will. For to make a mere cloud or mist God is 
repugnant to-common sense and to God’s Word. 

Blunt, under Anthropomorphites, states that even Cyril of Alexan- 
dria held to some sort of a shape in God, and that the form of God in 
Philippians II., 6, implies that. And he shows that Augustine, misty 
and utterly unsatisfactory as he is on that theme, nevertheless held 
that Tertullian’s assertion that God the Father has a body of Spirit is 
not heretical; and even Augustine admits a something, though he 
seems not to talk anything but nonsense as to what it is; he is so 
utterly vague and unpractical, as is his wont on that topic. 


DOCUMENT III. 
THE THALIA OF ARIUS. 
This, according to Sozomen (227), and Socrates (228), was con- 


(227). Sozomen’s Zcclestastical History, Book I., chapter xxi. 


(228). Socrates’ £cclesiastical History, Book I., chapter ix. A strange 
blunder is found in a note on page 29 of Bohn’s Socrates, English translation, 
where Sotades is called a J/aronite, and the reference is to a place in Gibbon, 
where the sect of the A/aronites, which did not rise till a considerable time after 
Athanasius, are referred to, Bohn’s translations of Socrates, Theodoret and 
Sozomen should be revised and corre¢ted, text and notes, by a competent theo-. 
logian well versed in later Greek, and they would be much more exact and use- 
ful, Newman in his translation of 5. Athanasius’ 7reatises Against Arianism, 


Account of the Six Ecumenticac Councils. 201 


-.---- τ ,.,.,..᾽ςο..ν.--ἨἨςἘ-᾿----᾽-Ἐ-- --  -“----------τὸ-- -τ----Γ-ς--’΄.....τἧἼὕ- -ς- τϊ;Γ ἾΊ,ἋσΣ“.. 


demned at the First Ecumenical Council. Doubtless it, and the letter 
of Arius and his fellow creature-servers and deniers of the Divinity of 
God the Word, to Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, were read by 
the assembled prelates, for that would be only just and right before 
they pronounced sentence; but, as the Minutes of the Synod are lost, 
we can say little more as to the details, only that neither of those 
emissions of Arius, nor his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia are men- 
tioned in the.genuine remains of the Council which have reached us. 
But the Creed specifies his chief heresies in its Anathema, and the 
Synodal Epistle mentions him and his errors. 


Date of these Blasphemies of Arius. 


This is indicated in the words of Athanasius below. It was 
after he had been cast out, and when he was incited by the Eusebians 
that he composed this document. ‘That would, I think, place it after 
his arrival at Nicomedia, the see of that Eusebius from whom the 
Arian party derived their name of Eusebians, consequently some- 
where in the period about A. D. 321-325. But I am not aware that 
there are any facts that tell us whether these ‘‘ blasphemies’’ were 
put forth before the letter of Arius and his friends to Alexander, 
Bishop of Alexandria, or not. It was, however, probably after Arius’ 
Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia which is given above. Newman gives 
these Blasphemies in poetic from. I have preferred the prose form, 
because I have thought that I could make the meaning clearer, here 
and there. 

St. Athanasius in sections 14 and 15 of his work Ox the Synods 
held at Ariminum in Italy, and at Seleucia in Isauria, denounces those 
“who had, like drunkards, given thoughtlessly away, the honor of their 
Fathers and their own salvation for the heresy of the Arians,” and 
introduces extracts from Arius, as follows: 


‘They therefore, out of zeal for that heresy, are of such a quar- 


page 94, note, tells us that the Sotades referred to was a native of Maronea, in. 
Crete, and refers to Suidas in proof. He states further that he lived under the 
successors of Alexander, and refers to Athen. xiv., 4, in proof. Consequently 
he was long before the rise of the heretical sect of the W/aronites. Such a queer 
blunder does not speak well for the learning of the writer of the note in Bohn’s. 
Socrates. Note ‘‘y,’? columns 83 and 84, tome 67, of Migne’s Patrologia 
Graeca, speaks of Arius’ Thaleia as “δᾶ morem Sotadis, turpissimi Cretensis. 
iambographi Cretensis conscriptus,’’ that is as ‘‘zwritten in the style of Sotades,. 
a most disgraceful Cretan writer of tambics.”” 


202 Chapter 77. 


relsome mind also: but do not ye be troubled on that account nor 
deem their audacity [to be] truth. For they are opposed even to 
their own selves, and having apostatized from their fathers, they do 
not have one mind but float about in various and different changes. 
And striving against the Council of Nicaea, they have held many 
Councils themselves, and have set forth a faith in each of them, and 
have stuck to none [of them]. And moreover they will never cease 
to act that way, for seeking in wickedness they will not find that 
wisdom which they have hated. 


‘“As a matter of necessity I have therefore subjoined portions of 
Arius’ writings and whatsoever else I have been able to collect of 
those things which they have set forth in different Synods, in order 
that ye may know, and wonder why they do not cease to quarrel 
‘with an Ecumenical Synod and with their own Fathers. 

‘‘Because Arius and his partisans thought and said [as follows]: 

“ἐς (ρα made the Son out of things that had no existence and called 
Him His own Son,’ 

“Ὁ The Word of God is one of the creatures; and 

“ἐς There was once when He was not,’ and 

“Ὁ F[e is alterable, being able when he wishes to be altered,’ ”’ 

They were therefore cast out of the Church by the blessed 
Alexander. 

Section 15. But Arius having been cast out, and having been 
incited by the partisans of Eusebius, put together his own heresy 
‘on paper, and as if in festivity, emulating no sensible writer, but the 
Egyptian Sotades (229) in the style and looseness of his song he writes 
many things (230), a part of which are as follows: 

‘“BLASPHEMIES OF ARIUS. 

‘‘God Himself therefore, as regards His own Nature is un- 
tellable to any man. He alone has no equal, nor any one like 
Himself nor equal in glory to Himself. And we say that He 
is ungenerated, because of Him who is generate (231) by nature. 


(229). Bright’s Greek text of St. Athanasius’ H7storical Writings, page 
259, has here Σωσάτην, that is, Sosates. Newman’s translation gives Sofades. — 


(230). Greek, πολλά. 
(231. Arius uses “‘generate”’ (γεννητὸν), in the sense of ‘‘created,’’ and ‘une 
generated”’ (’Ayévvyrov), in the sense of ‘‘ uncreated.”’ 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 208 


We hymn Him as without beginning because of Him who 
had a beginning: and we worship Him who is eternal, because of 
Him who came into being in time. He who is without beginning 
made the Son a beginning of things created, and advanced him into 
sonship to Himself, having made him [His] child (232). He has 
nothing proper to God, as regards the property of substance (233), 
for He is not equal [to Him], no, nor of the same substance as He is 
(234). And God is wise, for He Himself is the teacher of Wisdom. 
There is full proof that God is invisible to all beings. He is invisible 
both to things [made] through the Son, and to the Son Himself. 
And I will tell plainly in what sense the Invisible One is seen by the 
Son; by that power by which God is able to see, and in His own 
measure the Son endures to see the Father, as is lawful. ‘Therefore 
there is a Trinity who are of unlike glories (235); their substances are 
not mixed up with each other. One [of those Three Substances] is 
infinitely more glorious than either of the other two (236). As 
regards substance, the Father is foreign to the Son (237), because the 


(232). Or “having adopted Him,’’ τεκνοποιήσας, or “having generated 
Him,” or “having created Him.”’ 


(233). Here before Nicaea we find, (1), ὑπόστασις used in the sense of substance, 
asin Hebrewsi., 3, in the expression, character of his substance (χαρακτὴρ τῆς 
ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ). It is so used several times further on in this document. (2). 
We find here a denial of the consubstantiality, and, just below, we find the 
ὁμοούσιος αὐτῷ, that is, ‘‘of one substance with him,’ that is ‘of one substance 
with the Father,’’ denied by Arius. 


(234). See the note last above. 


(235). Two of Arius’ Trinity are the Father and the Son. Is the Third the 
Holy Ghost? Below he speaks of ‘‘each of the [other] two,’ ἑκατέρων, as con- 
trasted with the Son. Below he speaks of Wisdom as conceived of as Spzrit, 
(He does not say there the Holy Spirit), and so the word Sf7zr7¢ was sometimes 
applied in ancient Christian writings to the Son in the sense of Drvinztty, as, for 


instance, in the Horthset of Antioch, which will, God willing, appear in another 
part of this series. 


But it must be noted that while Arius here admits a Trinity, on the other 
hand he contrasts it with the Orthodox do¢trine of the Trinity, for he defines, in 
effect, his Trinity as (1), not of one substance, but of three different substances ; 
and (2), as not of /ike glory, but as of unlike glories. He uses the words, ‘‘ 7here 
are Three Substances’’ in his letter to Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria. See it 
above. 

(236) See the note last above. 

(237). Here again crops out the Arian hatred of the expression “of one 
substance with the Father’? (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Uatpi). 


204 Chapter 777. 


Father had no beginning. Understand that the Monad (238) was, but: 
the Duad was not before it came into existence (239). We see at once, 
therefore, that when there was no Son, the Father was God. There- 
fore the Son who did not [at first] exist, (for He came to exist at the 
Father’s will) is a Sole-Born God and He is foreign to each of the 
other two (240), [members of the Trinity]. Wisdom came into exist- 
ence as Wisdom by the will of the wise God. Hence He [Wisdom] 
is conceived of in such an infinite number of conceptions, Sfzrzt, 
Power, Wisdom, God’s Glory, Truth and Jmage, and Word. Under- 
stand that He is conceived of as Radiance and Light. The Superior 
One (241) is able, indeed, to generate (242) an equal to the Son, but 
not one more excellent, nor superior [to Him], nor greater. Howso- 
ever great the Son is, and whatsoever He is, He is by God’s will, and 
from when He was and since He was, from then He has existed from 
God (243). He [The Son] being a strong God, on His part (244) 
hymns the Superior [God] (245). To speak in brief, God is untell- 


(238). The Father. 

(239). Greek, Livec, ὅτι ἡ Μονὰς ἦν. ἡ Δυὰς δὲ οὐκ ἣν πρὶν ὑπάρξη. Arius means 
that at first the Father was alone, contrary to those early writers like St. Justin, 
the Martyr, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian and others, who held that the 
Logos was eternally co-existent with the Father, but inside Him till just before 
the worlds were made, when He was born out of Him to makethem. In other 
words, Arius denied the doctrine of a Logos eternally Exdiathetic, that is within 
the Father, and of one substance with Him, who became prophoric, that is Borne 
Forth out of the Father by Birth out of Him just before the worlds were made, 


and to make them. His Subsistence-Word was a mere creature, and so he was a 
creature-server. 


According to Arius, the Monad became a Duad, when the eternal Father, 
the Monad, created Arius’ non-eternal Son. 

(240). That is, seemingly foreign to the Father and the Holy Ghost. The 
Greek is, μονογενὴς Θεός ἐστι, Kai ἑκατέρων ἀλλότριος οὗτος. 

(241). The Father, evidently. 

(242). According to Arius’ common use of generate (yevvav), it means here 
to create. 

(243). Greek, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπέστη. But Arius differs fundamentally from the 
Orthodox sense of ἐκ Θεοῦ; for they meant by it, as in the Creed of the First 
Ecumenical Council, that the Logos had come out of the very Substance of God. 
the Father, and was co-eternal with Him; whereas, Arius understood the expres- 
sion not ‘‘out of God” at all, but ‘fof God” or ‘“‘from God’’ in the sense of 
being a creature made by God. 


(244) Greek, ἐκ μέρους. Newman renders that expression, “272 4715 degree.” 
(245). The Father, according to Arius. 


Nic@a, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 205 


able to the Son: for He isto Himself what He is, that is, unspeakable, 
so that the Son understands not to explain any one of the things 
mentioned, so far as relates to comprehending it (246). For it is 
impossible for Him to search out the Father who is above Him. 
For the Son does not know His own substance. For though He 
is a Son, He really came into existence by the will of the Father. 
What reason then permits [us to think that] He who is from the 
Father should know by comprehension Him who generated Him 
247). For it is plain, that it is impossible for Him, who had a be- 
ginning, to comprehend by the mind, or to grasp how He who is 
without a beginning, exists’’ (248). 
From these documents we see, 


1. That Arius made the Son of God a creature: 

2. That he made all worship of Him, mere creature-worship 
also: 

3. That he called Him God, and, hence, 


4. He had two Gods, the Father, an uncreated and eternal God; 
and because an uncreated and eternal God, therefore a superior God; 
and the Son a created and so non-eternal God, and because a created 
and non-eternal God, therefore an inferior God; and so he landed 
in polytheism. 

In other words he apostatized from the two fundamental prin- 
ciples of Christianity, 


1. That there is only one God, the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost; and, 


2. That He alone is to be worshipped: and so he was what 
Athanasius brands him, an apostate to polytheism and creature- 
service. 

We will quote Athanasius further on. 


Besides Arius’ own utterances above, there is another important 
document on his side by his friend and partisan, Eusebius, of Nicome- 


(246). Newman in a note on this place, page 96 of his St. Athanasius’ 
Treatises Against Arianism, shows that the heretic Eunomius differed from 
Arius on the point of God’s being comprehensible. 

(247). According to Arius, created Him. 

(248). I havetranslated the above from the Greek in Bright’s St. Athanasius’ 
Historical Writings, pages 259, 260. 


206 Chapter LIT. 


dia. It is foundin Chapter VI., Book I., of Theodoret’s Zcclesiastical 
fTistory: It is wholly Arian. 


The above-named were not all the heresies of Arius. St. Athana- 
sius, in his 7veatises Against Arianism, expressly says that he was 
a Theopaschite. And the same charge we find in a work Against 
Apollinaris, which is published under the name of St. Athanasius. 


Besides, this last named work shows that Arius did not believe 
that Christ’s humanity is perfect, but that it lacks a human mind, 
which he supplies by putting in its place his cveated God the Word. 


I quote two passages in proof: 


Passage [.—In Note 6, page 119, of his translation of S. Athan- 
astus’ Treatises Against Arianism, Newman shows that ‘‘ Arianism 
involved the doctrine that our Lord’s divine Nature suffered. 


‘‘ Athanasius brings this accusation against them distinctly in his 
work dAgaimst Apollinaris. 

‘“* Tdle then ts the fiction of the Arians, who suppose that the Saviour 
took flesh only, trreligiously imputing the notion of suffering to the im- 
passible Godhead. Contr. Apollin. i., 15; vid. also Ambros. de Fide, 
11: πὴ 

Passage [[.—St. Athanasius, in Section 3 of his Second Book 
Against Apollinaris, addressing him, points out as follows another 
error. I quote the place as in the Oxford translation : 


‘* And Arius acknowledges flesh alone, in order to a concealment 
of the Godhead, and says that instead of that inward man which is in 
us, that is, the soul, the Word came to exist in the flesh ;—for he 
dares to ascribe to the Godhead the idea of suffering and the resur- 
rection from Hades.”’ 


As Arius made his God the Word a mere creature he could there- 
fore logically enough, from that false position, make him liable to 
suffering ; and denying that Christ’s humanity was perfect in that, 
according to his heresy, it lacked a rational soul, that is, a mind, he 
could also put his mere created Word in place of the human mind in 
Christ’s humanity. He was hence a Monophysite of a certain pecu- 
liar sort, in that he ascribed but one Nature to Christ, and that a 
merely created one. He was also a certain peculiar sort of a Mono- 
thelite, in that he ascribed to his created Christ but one will, and 


Nicea, A. 20. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 207 


that will not a human one, but the will of his created God the Word. 
which stood in place of it, according to his heresy. 


St. Athanasius, in his Fzvst Oration Against the Arians, shows 
that Arius granted, however, that his created God the Word was 
before all other created things, and that God the Father made them 
through Him. .¥Wence, he differed radically from the view of St. 
Theophilus, of Antioch, and the Christian writers before Origen, that 
God the Word was co-eternally in God the Father, asa part of the 
Divinity, but was not born out of him till just before the worlds were 
made and to make them. Arius denied that whole teaching by deny- 
ing that the Word is a part of God, or ever came out of Him, or 
ever was any part of the uncreated Jehovah at all, and by making 
Him a mere creature, created just before the worlds were made, and 
to make them. I quote Athanasius on that and on some other 
heresies of Arius. According to St. Athanasius (who knew Arius 
and his writings well, for they were all then extant, not partly lost 
as now), Arius held as follows: 


‘“God the Father was not always; the Son was not always; but 
forasmuch as all things were made (249) out of nothing, the Son of 
God was also made out of nothing (250), and forasmuch as all things. 
are creatures, He also zs a creature and a work, and forasmuch as. 
nothing existed at first, but all things were made afterwards, ¢here 
was once when the Son of God also was not (251) and He was not be- 
fore He was generated (252), but had a beginning of existence, for He 
was made when God willed to create. For the Son Himself also is one 
work among all [created] works (253). And though by nature He 
is mutable, yet of His own power over Himself he willed to remain 


(249). Greek, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. Here we have one of the heretical expressions 
condenmed in the Anathema at the end of the Creed, 

(250). Greek, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, 

(251). Greek, jv ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν. Here we have another of the expressions 
which are condemned in the Anathema at the end of the Creed of the 318, 

(252) Greek, οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῆναι. Here we have another expression 
condemned in the Nicene Anathema. It is diametrically opposed to St. 
Theophilus’ do@trine that the co-eternal and consubstantial Logos was in the 
Father till just before the worlds were made, and that then He was born out of 
the Father’s substance to make them. 


(253). This sets forth an error which is anathematized in the Creed of 
Nicaea. 


208 Chapter 111]. 


good (254). When, however, he wishes, He Himself can make 
Himself changeable, just as all thingscan. * * * Christis not 
real God, but He is called God by communion [with Divinity] (255) 
just as all other men may be. He isnot the Reason (ὁ Adyos) who is 
by nature in the Father, and belongs to His Substance, and is His 
own Wisdom, by which [Wisdom] He made this world, but the 
Reason (6 Adyos) who belongs in the Father is another Reason (ἄλλος. 
* %& ἧς Advos),and the Wisdom who is in the Father and is eternal with 
Him is another Wisdom, by which Wisdom He made this Reason 
also (τοῦτον τὸν Adyov). And that [created] Lord Himself is called 
Reason with reference to things possessed of reason (λέγεταε Λόγος διὰ 
τὰ λογιχὰ), and He is called Wisdom with reference to things possessed 
of Wisdom. * * * God did not create us for Him, but Him for 
us. For God was alone, and the Reason (6 Adyos) was not with 
Him ; thereafter God wishing to create us then made Him (256), and 
from when (257) He was made, He named Him Reason (Λόγον) and 
Son and Wisdom, in order that he might create us through Him. 
* %* * ‘The Christ is not the natural and real power of God, but 
just as the caterpillar and the wingless locust are each of them called 
a power, so He also is called a Power of the Father (258). * * * 
‘The Father is invisible to the Son and can neither see nor know the 
Father perfectly and exactly: for inasmuch as the Son had a be- 
ginning to His existence, He can not know the One who never had a 
beginning (259), but even what he knows and sees, he knows and 
sees according as God’s own power grants him power so to do (260), 


(254). See anote above where mention is made of what this heresy leads 
to, that is the horrible blasphemy that Christ’s Divinity could have fallen as the 
angels fell! 

(255). Greek, μετοχῇ. 

(256). Here again we see that Arius admits that his created Logos was 
made before time began, that is before the world was made. 


(257) Greek, ἀφ ci γέγονεν. Arius tries to express his heresy in exact terms 
by ‘‘from when” or “from what’ point in duration. He does not here say, 
‘‘from the time,’ because that might be taken to imply that he was born 771 
dime, that is after the world was made: for he admitted that He was made before 
the worlds were made. So in the phrase quoted above, he does not say that 


“There was a time when the Son of God was not,’’ but that “ There was when,’’ 
etc, 

(258). He seems to refer to I. Cor. i., 24. 

(259). That is, the Father. 


(260). Literally, ‘‘according to God’s own power.”’ 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 209 


just as we also know and see [byit]. * * * Not only does he 
not know the Father exactly, but he does not know His own Sub- 
stance either ’’ (261). 


I would here add the following: 
PROOF FROM AN ARIAN SOURCE. 


1. That the Arians held the Holy Ghost to be a creature inferior 
to the Son: 


2. That they did not worship the Holy Ghost: 


3. That they made God the Son as a creature worship the Father; 
and the Foly Ghost, a creature (according to them), and all other creatures 
worship the Son, a creature, 


And, 4, that the Arian Service to the Son was RELATIVE CREATURE- 
SERVICE, Uke that of the apostate Israelites in the wilderness. 


In some ‘‘ Old Monuments,’’ of the Fourth or Fifth Century per- 
haps, ‘‘pertaining to the Doétrine of the Arians,’’ and which are given 
as Fragments in Migne’s Latin Patrology we find Arian statements as 
to the Holy Ghost’s being a creature and as to worshipping Him. 


Thus in Fragment XIV., he is termed, ‘‘ The third in nature and 
in order after the Father and the Son. * * * He ἧς the first and 
greater WORK of the Father through the Son, CREATED through the 
Son. * * * This Holy Ghost is NOY GoD NOR LORD, NOT 
CREATOR NOR MAKER. It is NOT TO BE WORSHIPPED NOR TO BE 
BOWED TO. * * * By that Spirit the angels also bow to the Son; 
and the archangels and all the natures of invisible and heavenly beings 
by it bow to the Son, and THROUGH THE SON, TO THE FATHER. 
* & * And the Holy Ghost Himself before all things, and for all 
things, and above all things and with all things, bows to the Son (and 
it so does, Itself alone being without a Mediator), through Whom rt 
WAS MADE before all thing's, as the Son also before all things, and for all 
things, and with all things, and above all things, bows to the Father 
and gives thanks without a Mediator’’ (262). 


(261). Athanasius’ Oration I., Against the Arian, as quoted in Contogonis’ 
Literary and Critical History of the Holy Fathers of the Church who flourished 
from the First Century tothe Eighth; and of their writings, (in Greek), tome 2, 
Athens, A. D. 1853, pages 149 and 150. 

(262). Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tom. 13, col. 618. Hune Spiritum opor- 
tet nos necessarie confiteri * * * tertium post Patrem et Filium natura 


210 Chapter 717. 


The Arian author of the Sixteenth of those Fragments, perhaps 
of the Fourth or Fifth Century (263), published by Migne under the 
heading ‘‘ Old Monuments pertaining to the Doétrine of the Arians,”’ 
quotes as favoring his side a certain Bishop Bithenus,’’ of whom an 
annotator in Migne remarks, ‘‘ 7hzs Bishop Bithenus ts unknown to me. 
An Arian Bishop Bitinicus occurs in the subscriptions of the Coun- 
cil of Sardica, in Hilary Op. Hist. Frag. tit. Bithynicus, a heretic, 
occurs tn the time of the Emperor Constantius in Athanasius, (Opp. ¢. 
2., 2. 377,’’) (264). If, as I presume, he was an Arian, and worshipped 
the Son as a creature, relatively to the Father, we have here an ‘instance 
of professed relative creature-service in the following passage: 


‘“But we do homage to the Son, because, in our opinion, it is 
certain ¢hat that glory of his ASCENDS TO THE FATHER’? (265). 


Here the following facts are evident. "The Arians believed 
1. That the Holy Ghost is a creature. 
This is evident from the expressions : 


“176 τς the [or ‘‘a’’] first and greater work of the Father through 
the Son, created ee the Son.”’ 


This, of course, makes His creation posterior to the Son’s. 


* 


* * Hic est primnm et majus Patris per Filium opus, creatum per Filium. 
* * * Hic Spiritus sanctus nou Deus neque Dominus, nou Creator neque 
Factor, nou colendus neque adorandus. * * * In isto Spiritu et angeli ador- 
ant Filium, et arcangeli et omnes invisibilium et coelestium naturae in isto 
adorant Fiiium, et per Filium, Patrem; * * * etipse Spiritus sanctus ante 
omnia et pro omnibus et super omnia et cum omnibus Filium adorat ipse solus 
sine mediatore, per quem factus est ante omnia: sicuti et Filius ante omnia et 
pro omnibus, et cum omnibus, et super omnia Patrem adorat, et gratias agit sine 
mediatore. 

(263). A note on the Sixth of those Arian Fragments puts its date about A. 
D. 381. See note “%,”’ col. 610, tome 13, of Migne’s Patrologia Latina. ‘This, 
Fragment xvi., is perhaps of about the same age, though it contains no clear 
record as to its exact date. 
(264). Id., col. 622, Note ‘‘%.” 


(265). Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tom. 13, col. 621. Similiter etiam 
Bithenus episcopus et cognitus ad Papam. * ἃ * ‘ Veneramur antem 
Filium, quia apud nos certum est hane ejus gloriam ad Patrem ascendere.’” 
On the words ad Papam, the author of note ‘‘7,”’ col. 622, id., states: ‘“‘ Perhaps 
Pope Julius ts to be understood, to whom the Epistle of Sardica was written. 
Hilary, Op. Hist. Frag. ii.” 


Nicea, A. 20. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 211 


2. The Arians seem also to have held that the Holy Spirit is of a 
different zafure from the Father and from the Son also. 


For this Arian writer says that the Holy Spirit is, ‘‘ Zhe 7 γα 
zn Nature and in order after the Father and the Son,’ the third in 
order, that is, as being a creation of the Father by the Son, (‘‘through 
whom,’’ as it adds below, ‘‘ /¢ was MADE before all things,’’) and so 
as having the Third place after them, and ¢he third in nature after 
them, because, as the Arians denied that the Son is of the same sub- 
stance with the Father, so they made the Holy Spirit to be of a aif- 
ferent substance from either. 


That, indeed, was the teaching of Arius himself, for in the Con- 
fession written by him and several others of his party to St. Alexan- 
der, Bishop of Alexandria, they expressly say, ‘‘ There are Three 
Subsistences.’’ Andin the 7halia Arius writes: 


‘* There ts a Trintty who are of unlike glories; their substances are 
not mixed up with each other.”’ 


3. Yet it is added, singularly enough, that this creature worships 
another, whom the Arians held to be aiso a creature; that is, accord- 
ing to those creature-servers, a creature worships a creature! For 
the writer adds, 

‘‘ The Hory Guost Himse Fr (He Himself alone [being] without 
a Mediator), before all things, and for all things, and above all things, 
and with all things BOWS ΤῸ the Son.’’ 


4. Next follows the important statement which is closely con- 
nected in ideas with what just precedes : 


‘* This Holy Ghost is Not Gop, NoR LORD, NoR MAKER; 722 ts 
NOT TO BE WORSHIPPED NOR TO BE BOWED ‘O.”’ 


5. The Arians worshipped God the Son as a creature, relatively, 
however, to the uncreated Father. 'This, of course, was a return to the 
sinful, heathenish principle of relative service, that is, serving a created 
thing, or a created person, for the sake of the true God, as the 
Israelites served the true God through the golden calf in the wilder- 
ness, and through the calves at Bethel and at Dan, and so were 
accursed and scourged by God. 


And what is more, in one of the following passages, that A7zaz 
relative service of a creature, by a creature, is charged to the influence 


212 Chapter 717. 


of the Holy Ghost! I quote Passage I.: ‘‘ But we do homage to the 
Son, because, i our opinion, it is certain that that glory of His As- 


CENDS TO THE FATHER.”’ 
PASSAGE II. 


‘“ By that Spirit [the Holy Ghost] the angels also bow to the Son ; 
and the archangels and all the natures of invisible and heavenly beings, 
by It bow to the Son, and THROUGH THE SON TO THE FATHER;”’ that 
is, relatively to a creature for the sake of the Father. 


And, in what at once follows, the Arian blasphemer makes the 
Holy Spirit not only a mover to that creature-service, but also a par- 
ticipant and chief in that Arian velative-service. For he immediately 
adds : 

‘“ And tHE Hory Guost HimsE.r before all things, and for all 
things, and above all things, and with all things, bows to the Son,” 
that is, in the way It is represented above, ‘‘ THROUGH Zhe Son to the 
Father;’’ as I understood him to mean. 


But according to the Arian view, the Spirit, though a creature, 
was in one respect at least like the Son Himself; that is, It did not 
need a mediator. 


From the foregoing passages it will be seen that Arianism, which 
worshipped a created God the Son, and which made that created and 
therefore zferior God to be worshipped by a created Holy Ghost and 
by all other creatures, and which fell into the sin of relative-service, 
was a plain and evident apostasy back to the heathen sins of relative- 
service and creature-service. 


I will add that by its making two Gods, the Father an edernai, 
and because eternal, therefore a superior God, and the Son a non- 
eternal, but created, and because non-eternal and created, an inferior 
God; it was a plain apostasy to Polytheism. 


And by its denial of the real divinity of Him whom the scriptures 
again and again call really ‘‘God,’’ as for instance in I. John, v., 20; 
John I., 1, 14; John xx., 28; and by its denial of the e/evnzty of that 
divine Spirit Whom the Holy Ghost by Paul in Hebrews ix., 14, 
expressly terms ‘‘efernal,’’ it was evidently both illogical and infidel, 
for while professing to receive the Scriptures which teach those truths, 
it rejected the Scriptures in effect, by denying those truths, for they 
necessarily stand or fall together. 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 213 


8. St. Athanasius brands Arius’ heresy as resulting in Polytheism 
and Creature-Service. St. Epiphanius, and other Fathers, to the same 


effect. 


St. Athanasius has so much on those themes, that we can give 
only a small part of it here. The reader can readily find more in the 
Oxford translations into English of some of his works, and in the 
originals of all of them. Again and again he insists on the truth 
that the Logos has come out of the Father’s substance, and that He 
is consubstantial and co-eternal with Him; and that the Arian denial of 
those truths necessarily ends in Polytheism and in the creature-service 
of bowing, as an act of religious worship, to a creature, and of pray- 
ing to a creature: whereas, he shows, the Oxsthodox refused to invoke 
any creature whomsoever and to bow to any creature as acts of relig- 
ious worship. And this he could say with truth, for as yet we never 
read of any saint-worship in the Christian Church. On the contrary, 
as that very able Anglican, Rev. J. Endell Tyler in his Primitive 
Christian Worship has shown, the Primitive Christian writers express 
themselves strongly against that Sin. No son of the English Church 
of our day has deserved so well of it, as that too little appreciated and 
scholarly man. Arianism was the door by which the soul-destroying 
sin of serving creatures first entered the fortress of the Universal 
Church, only however to be cast out of it at once by the First Ecu- 
menical Synod. Yet contrary to Nicaea, it spread for some years, by 
the aid of the Arian Emperors over most of the church, for Orthodox 
prelates were thrust out of their sees, and creature-worshipping Arians 
were put into their places, and for a long period, the poor people were 
taught that creature-service is right, that creatures may be invoked, 
bowed to, ete.; and some of those so trained seem to have retained 
something of that error, for we find it afterwards among some, 
though forbidden by Nicaea and by all the Five Ecumenical Synods 
after it. For we must remember that even in the latter part of Con- 
stantine’s reign, Orthodoxy was more or less harassed, and that from 
the beginning of his Son Constantine’s reign to its end, A. D. 337— 
361, it was persecuted; that during Julian the Apostate’s sway, A. D. 
361-363, it could look for no special favor, for as a creature-server he 
was naturally nearer Arianism than Orthodoxy; it breathed freely 
during the short reign of the Orthodox Jovian, A. D. 363-364, that 
is from June 27, A. D. 363 to February 16, 364, that is less than 
eight months; and that during the reign of Valens over the Eastern 


214 Chapter 117. 


Empire A. D. 364-378, it was persecuted there. From A. D. 364, 
when Valentinian I. became Western Emperor, the Western Orthodox 
had peace. But from the accession of Constantius in A. D. 350 to 
the rule of the whole Roman Empire, West and East, till his death 
A. D. 361, the Western Church was under the harrow. Wordsworth 
in his article in Smith and Wace’s Dzétionary of Christian Biography 
on the Soxs of Constantine, Volume I., page 652, tells us from ancient 
authors how bitterly the Western Orthodox were persecuted during 
those ten years. He writes: 


‘Tt would take too long to recount the disgraceful proceedings 
at the Council of Arles in 353, where the legates of the new Pope, 
Liberius, were taken in, or at Milan in 355, when Constantius declared 
that his own will should serve the Westerns for a canon as it had 
served the Syrian Bishops, and proceeded to banish and imprison, no 
less than 147 of the more prominently Orthodox clergy and laity 
(Hist. Ar. ad Mon. 33, etc.: see De Broglie, III., p. 263). The most 
important of the sufferers were Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of 
Cagliari, and Dionysius of Milan. Soon after followed the exile of 
Liberius, and in 355, that of Hosius. All this was intended to lead 
up to the final overthrow of Athanasius. 

‘arly in 356 Syrianus, the Duke of Egypt, began the open perse- 
cution of the Catholics at Alexandria, and Constantius, when appealed 
to confirmed his actions, and sent Heraclius to hand over all the 
Churches to the Arians, which was done with great violence and 
cruelty, (Ast. Ar. 54). George of Cappadocia’’ [an Arian] ‘‘was in- 
truded into the church, and Athanasius was forced to hide in the desert. 
In the same year Hilary of Poitiers was banished to Phrygia.”’ 


During Constantius’ time as Jerome writes, ‘‘ Zhe whole world 
groaned and wondered that tt was Arian.’’ Edgar, who is not always 
sound, nevertheless says well, what I here quote to show how thor- 
oughly Arianism had befouled the Church by violence and tyranny. 
He writes on pages 307 to 309 as follows: 


‘“The Arians, supported by the emperor, continued the persecu- 
tion of the Nicene faith, till the world, in general, became Arian. The 
contagion of heresy, like a desolating pestilence, spread through the 
wide extent of eastern and western Christendom. The melancholy 
tale has, among others, been attested by Sozomen, Jerome, Basil, 
Augustine, Vincentius, Prosper, Beda, Baronius, and Labbeus. 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Fleresies. 215 


‘<The east and west,’ says Sozomen, ‘seemed, through fear of 
Constantius, to agree in faith.’ Arianism, all know, was the faith 
produced by dread of the emperor. ‘The whole world,’ says the 
sainted Jerome, ‘groaned and wondered to find itself become Arian.’ 
Gregory’s relation is still more circumstantial and melancholy. ‘All,’ 
says this celebrated author, ‘except a very few whom obscurity pro- 
tected, or whose resolution, through divine strength, was proof 
against temptation and danger, temporised, yielded to the emperor, 
ani betrayed the faith. Some,’ he adds, ‘were chiefs of the impiety, 
and some were circumvented by threats, gain, ignorance, or flattery. 
The rightful guardians of the faith, actuated by hope or fear, became 
its persecutors. Few were found, who did not sign with their hands 
what they condemned in their hearts; while many, who had been ac- 
counted invincible, were overcome. ‘The faithful, without distinction, 
were degraded and banished.’ ‘The subscription of the Byzantine 
confession was an indispensable qualification for obtaining and 
retaining the episcopal dignity. 


‘‘Basil on the occasion, uses still stronger language than Gregory. 
He represents the church as reduced to that ‘complete desperation, 
which he calls its dissolution.’ According to Augustine, ‘the church, 
as it were, perished from the earth. Nearly all the world fell from 
the apostolic faith. Among six hundred and fifty bishops, were 
found scarcely seven, who obeyed God rather than the emperor, and 
who would neither condemn Athanasius nor deny the Trinity.’ The 
Latins, according to Vincentius, ‘ yielded almost all to force or fraud, 
and the poison of Arianism contaminated, not merely a few, but nearly 
the whole world.’ 


‘““«Nearly all the churches in the whole world,’ says Prosper, 
‘were, in the name of peace and the emperor, polluted with the com- 
munion of the Arians.’ ‘The councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, 
which embraced the eastern and western prelacy, all, through treach- 
ery, condemned the ancient faith. The Ariminian confession, the 
saint denominated ‘the Ariminian perfidy.’ “The Arian madness,’ 
says the English historian Bede, ‘corrupted the whole continent, 
opened a way for the pestilence beyond the ocean, and shed its poison 
on the British and other western islands’’’ (266). 


(266). ᾿Εδόκει τότε διὰ τὸν τοῦ βασιλέως φόβον, ἀνατολὴ Kat δύσις ὁμοφρονεῖν περὶ τὸ 
δόγμα, (Sozomen, IV., 16.). Ingemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus est, 


216 Chapter ITT. 


Few systems of error have been more violent and brutal than 
Arianism. In the days of its power it was ruthless. Witness its out- 
rages, murders, and tyrannies at Alexandria and elsewhere, its op- 
pression of the majority of Christians, who still remained true to the 
Nicene Creed, its removals of sound Bishops from their sees, its fill- 
ing their places with creature-serving Arians, its persecution of the 
Trinitarian clergy and laity in the whole Roman Empire; anl in 
Spain after the Gothic conquest. And its terrible slaughters of 
the Trinitarians in Africa in the Vandal invasion, its confiscatings 
and exilings of the people, and its punishing and exiling of Trinitarian 
Bishops there, and its wholesale confiscation of their Churches and 
its use of them for their polytheistic, Christ’s-Divinity-denying wor- 
ship, and its outrageous treatment of females for professing the Nicene 
Faith are all told even by the skeptic Gibbon in the thirty-third and 
the thirty-seventh Chapters of his Decline and Fall of the Roman 
Empire. Its policy in Africa was one of general spoilation and con- 
fiscation, and cruelty (267). Even Gibbon in the index to his Decline 
and Fall of the Roman Empire, under ‘‘ Arians,’’ witnesses to their 
cruelty in the East, that they ‘‘abused their victory over the Council of 
Nice,’ and that they ‘‘displayed less firmness in adversity than their 
opponents.’ ‘The fact is that they had but little strength in the 
Church at the start; and that their chief reliance, as Athanasius shows, 


(Jerom. adv. Lucif. 4, 300). Πλὴν ὀλίγων ἄγαν, (Nazian. Or. 21). Εἰς ἀπόγνωσιν ἑαυτῶν 
ἐρχόμεθα. παντελῆ λήλυται παρὰ ἐκκλησίᾳ, (Basil, ep. 82. ad Athan. 3, 173). Tanquam 
perierit ecclesia de orbe terrarum, (August. Ep. 93). L/eglise étoit perie, (Apol. 
I, 100). Dilapsoa fide Apostolorum omni pene mundo. De sexcentis et quin- 
quaginta, ut fertur, episcopis vix septem inventi sunt, quibus cariora essent Dei 
praecepta quam regis, videlicet ut nec in Athanasii damnationem convenirent, 
nec Trinitatis confessionem negarent, (Augustin, Contra Jul. 10, 919). Arianorum 
venenum non jam portiunculam quandam, sed pene orbem totum contamina- 
verat, adeo ut prope cunctis Latini sermonis episcopis, partim vi., partim fraude, 
caligo quedam mentibus offunderetur, (Vincent. Com. 644). Omnes pene 
ecclesiae, toto orbe sub nomine pacis et regis, Arianorum consortio polluuntur, 
(Prosper, Chron. 1, 423). Ariana vesania, corrupto orbe toto, hance etiam insulam 
veneno sui infecit erroris. Non solum orbis totius, sed et insularum ecclesiis. 
aspersit, (Beda, 1, 8). Fere omnes episcopi in fraudem sunt inducti, ut Occiden- 
tales Ariminensi illi formule, ita Orientales subscriberent, (Baron. in Bisciola, 
230). Ommes pene totius orbis antistites metu exilii et tormentorum per vim, 
induxerunt, (Labbeus, 2, 912). 


(267). Gibbon’s Rome, Chapter XXXIII., Vol. III., page 543, and Vol. 
IV., p. 138, of Bohn’s seven volume edition. See the original sources there cited. 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 217 


was on the secular power, and that when it failed to support them 
they naturally fell, but not however till they had indo¢trinated, during 
long years, many with the belief that creature-worship is right. 


If in the following pages St. Athanasius uses strong language of 
the Arian heresy, we must remember its long and bitter struggle to 
force on the Church its fundamental heresies of denying God, the 
Word’s Divinity, and its necessary corollaries of Creature-Service and 
of Polytheism, and its persecuting and wasting spirit. Even after 
the desolating and destroying Arian deluge passed, it left in Arian 
minds, which outwardly conformed to Orthodoxy, the seeds of crea- 
ture-serving error, which were to appear here and there later on. For 
that heresy tyranized over the West for ten years, and over the East 
during most of the long period, A. D. 337 to 378, that is, during the 
reigns of the persecuting Arian Emperors, Constantius and Valens, a. 
period of about thirty-eight years. 

I quote certain passages of Athanasius against zfs novelty, tts 
denial of God the Word's Divinity, its Polytheism and its Creature- 
Worship. ἘΞ 


PASSAGE I, 
OF ATHANASIUS, FROM SECTION I. OF HIS ORATION I. AGAINST THE 
ARIANS: 


St. Athanasius, in his righteous abhorrence of the great heresy of 
Arius, which denied the Divinity of God the Word, and brought in 
Polytheism and creature-worship, speaks of it as fromits ‘‘ father, 
the devil,’’ as making a pretence to be Christian, as perverting Scrip- 
ture, as without reason, but using sophistry in its place, and at 
the end says that, 

‘“Those who call these men [the Arians] Christians, are in great 
and grievous error, as neither having studied Scripture, nor under- 
standing Christianity at all, and the faith which it contains.’’ See 
the whole passage on pages 178 and 179 of the Oxford translation. 


St. Athanasius did not believe in that false charity which de- 
ceives the erring denier of Christ’s Divinity, and of the truth that 
God alone is to be worshipped ; but, as his bounden duty was, warned 
him, that he might be saved. His course was noble, and deserves to 
be imitated by every true bishop, presbyter, and deacon, and by every 
Christian. 


218 Chapter 1. 


PASSAGE, II. 


ATHANASIUS BRANDS SERVICE TO CHRIST AS A CREATURE AS NOVEL, 
AS A HERESY, AND AS FROM THE DEVIL, AND THOSE 
GUILTY OF IT AS NOT CHRISTIAN. 


Athanasius, in Sections 8, 9 and τὸ of his Déscourse 7. Against 
the Arians, in denouncing the novelty and heresy of their assertion 
that the Word of God is α creature, and 7s to be worshipped as such, 
says: 

‘““ For who at any time yet heard of such doctrines? Or whence or 
from whom did the flatterers and bribe-takers of the heresy hear such 
things? When they were being instructed as catechumens, who 
talked such things to them? Who has said to them, Cease fo worship 
the creation, and again come and worship a creature and a work? 
But if even they themselves confess that they have heard such things 
now for the first time, let them not deny that that heresy is a thing 
alien, and not from the Fathers (268). But what is not from the 
Fathers, but has been now invented, what is it but that of which the 
blessed Paul has prophesied in the words, ‘Zz the latter times some 
shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and to 
doctrines of demons, tn the hypocrisy of liars, having their own cen- 
sciences seared (269), and turning away from the truth’.(270). 


9. For, behold, we speak boldly from the Scriptures of God con- 
cerning the pious Faith, and set them up as a lamp on its lamp-stand 
and say, that He is by Nature Real and Genuine Son of the Father, 
of His own Substance, Sole-Born Wisdom, and Real and Sole Word of 
God. He is not a creature nor a work, but is an offspring of the 
Father’s own Substance. For that reason He is Real God, being of 
one and the same Substance with the Father. For He is ‘ Character 
of lis Substance’ (271). But all those other things to which He said, 


(268), St. Athanasius’ Oration 7. Against the Arians, Section 8, (page 8, 
Bright’s edition), Τίς αὐτοῖς εἴρηκεν ὅτι, “ τὴν εἰς τὴν κτίσιν λατρείαν ἀφέντες, κτίσματι 
καὶ ποιήματι πάλιν προσέρ χεσθε λατρεύειν; "" Hi δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ πρῶτον νῦν ὁμολογοῦσιν ἀκηκοέναι 
τὰ τοιαύτα, μὴ ἀρνεῖσθωσαν ἀλλοτρίαν καὶ μὴ ἐκ πατέοων εἶναι τὴν αἵρεσιν ταύτην. 

(269) Mier im. ty." ἼΣ; 2) 

(270): 2-Litus 1., 14. 

(271). Heb. i., 3. Χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ. Newman’s trafislation, 
most of it, is good, but it is very faulty in such passages as John viii., 42; John 
Xvi., 28, and Hebrews i., 3, and in some other passages, including some in the 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 219 


“7 have said ye are gods’ (272) have that grace from the Father by 
communion only with the Word, through the Spirit (273). For He 
is ‘ Charaéter of the Father's substance’ (274), and Light out of Light 
(275), and a real Likeness (276) of the Father’s substance (277). For 
in another place the Lord said, ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the 
Father’ (278). And He always was and is, and never was He not. 
For inasmuch as the Father is eternal, His Logos [that is ‘‘ 777s Rea- 
5071] and His Wisdom must also be eternal. 


Septuagint, because he gives the readings of our Common English Version of 
those places, instead of a literal rendering of the Greek, and so blurs the sense. 
Some of Newman’s Notes are good, others methaphysical rather than theolo- 
gical, and others of them in favor of Roman creature-worship and against the 
truth that God alone is to be worshipped, (Matt. iv., ro). 


(272). Psalm 1xxxi., 6, Septuagint, Psalm Ixxxii., 6, English Version. 


(273). That is, the Logos is really God; bnt no creature is really such, 
though, as Rosenmuller, on Psalm Ixxxii., 6, explains, the term is applied there 
to creatures as bearing authority or mission or function from God. The term 
there used for gods is not, however, the incommunicable name, /ehovah, which 
is never given to any creature, but “/ohim, which is sometimes given in Holy 
Writ to mere creatures, sometimes to the sole true God. 


This is a noteworthy explanation which serves to illustrate other places in 
Athanasius where men are spoken of as gods. Compare Rosenmiillér’s Scholia 
in Vetus Testamentuim on Psalm 1xxxii., 6. Athanasius shows that he means 
that any Christian can be called a god by virtue of his communion with Christ 
by his Spirit that dwelleth in us, though as the Scripture rarely applies the term 
god to men we should use it very rarely, because it is very likely to be mis- 
understood. The Greek is, Διὸ Θεός gary ἀληθινὸς, ἀληθινοῦ Πατρὸς ὁμοούσιος ὑπάρ- 


᾽) 


. x eae Nei i Pe ee Y py tere eo See ΤΡ ΣῈ 
χων. Τὰ 0 ἄλλα, οἷς εἷπεν, “᾿Εγὼ εἶπα, Θεοί ἐστε,)") μόνον μετοχῇ τοῦ Λόγου διὰ τοῦ 


Πνεύματος ταύτην ἔχουσι τὴν χάριν παρὰ τοῦ ἸΙατρός. 


ἘΠΕ: ἰ-,» 2: 


(275). The Logos 15 called a Ζήρλέϊα Johni., 9, 10; and in Luke ii., 32. 
Compare John viii., 12. The Father is spoken of in Jamesi., 17, as the Father 
of Lights, and He is called Ligh¢ in I. Johni., 5, etc. 


(276)... Cor. 14.243 πἰ ‘Corjav:, ac Col is wise 


(277.) We often say of a child, for instance, that he zs the very image of 
his father; that is, he is of the same substance, and is like him; though we 
must not carry this comparison beyond what is right, for the Father, the Logos, 
and the Holy Ghost are three Parts of but one God; whereas a man and his two 
sons are not only three persons, but also three different and entire men. 


(278). John xiv., 9. 


220 Chapter LIT, 


But on the other hand what do they bring forward to us out of 
their all-blamed Thalia? (279). Or, first of all, let them study it 
themselves, imitating the style of the one who wrote it, in order that 
even if they are made sport of by others, they may [then] learn how 
low they have fallen and how prostrate they lie, and so let them then 
recite it. But what could they recite out of it but that, 


‘God was not always a Father, but became so afterwards. The 
Son was not always, for He was not before He was generated. He did 
not come out of the Father, but He was made out of nothing. He ts not 
of the Father's own substance, for He ts a creature and a work. And 
Christ ts not real God, but made God by communion only (280). The 
Son does not know the Father accurately, nor does the Word see the 
father perfeéily, nor does the Word understand or know the Father 
accurately, but Fle ts called Word and Wisdom in name only, and ts 
called Son and Power by favor (281). He ts not unchangeable, as the 
Father ts, but ts changeable by nature, as creatures are, and He lacks the 
power to comprehend and know the Father.’? 


Then St. Athanasius goes on to state that the whole difference 
between the Orthodox and the Arians turned on the question as to 
whether the Word is very God or not: that, if He be real God, then 
it will at once follow that He is eternal, and of the Father’s own sub- 
stance, not a creature, and that He is in fact as in name the very 
Word and Wisdom of God, and not as the Arians asserted a mere 
partaker of heavenly Wisdom and a second Word and Wisdom. 
Next, in Chapter X., He goes on to imply again, as he writes more 


(279). See atranslation of parts of that infamous and Christ-dishonoring 
work below. 

(280). Greek, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς ὁ Χριστὸς, ἀλλὰ μετοχὴ Kai αὐτὸς ἐθεοπ- 
οιήθη. Μετοχῇ is rendered also “ὧν participation,’ that is, being made to partake 
of the influences of the Holy Spirit. Here we see that the Arians, like modern 
Anti-Trinitarians, are prone to apply the words 7 have said, ye are gods, to 
prove that he may be a creature and yet be called God. An Anti-Trinitarian 
Hoffmanite, in arguing with me a few days ago, used, I think, this very expres- 
sion of Psalm lxxxii., 6. Athanasius, in effect, takes the term god here, as ap- 
plied to men, to mean merely god/y. For all men who wish can become gods, 
in the sense above explained by him, dy communion with God’s Spirit, the 
Father’s great Sanctifying Agent, who is sent through the Son. For we who 
are Christians aim to be made godly by the sanctifying influences of the Spirit. 

(281). Greek, καὶ χάριτι λέγεται Yide καὶ δύναμις. That is, Arius means, Christ 
is a Son by grace only, and is not at all of the substance of the Father. 


Niucea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 221 


openly elsewhere, that the Arian assertions that the Word is a creature 
and a made God end in creature-service and in polytheism. For 
Speaking of the utterances of the Orthodox as to the eternity, the 
consubstantiality, and the real Divinity of God the Word, and the 
heretical Arian utterances quoted above which are opposed to them, 
he asks the Arians, 


‘“Which of those two sets of utterances asserts the Divinity uf 
the Son of the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ, and shows Him to be 
God? Those which ye vomit forth, or those which we have uttered from 
the Scriptures and do assert now? If therefore the Saviour is not 
God, nor Word, nor Son, ye and the pagans and the present Jews are 
at liberty to say what ye wish (282). Butif He is the Word of the 
Father and the Real Son, and is God come out of God, and is over all 
blessed forever (283), why is it not a worthy thing to obliterate and to 
efface those other [Arian] expressions, and the Arian Thalia, as but a 
pattern of wickednesses and full ofall impiety? He who falls into that 
impiety knoweth not that giants perish by it, and that he falleth into a 
snare of Hades (284). And even they themselves also know that, 
and yet as unscrupulous men they conceal it, not having the courage 
to speak out those things, but uttering other things than those. For 
if they speak they will be condemned; and if they are suspected they 
will be smitten by all with refutations taken out of the Scriptures. 
Wherefore, in their unscrupulousness as Sovs of this world (285), after 
feeding their so-called lamp from the wild olive, and fearing least it 
may soon be quenched (for Scripture saith, ‘ Zhe light of impious 
men 15. quenched ) (286), they hide it under the bushel (287) of their 


(282). ‘That is, if the Saviour be not God, and Word, and Son, the deniers 
of his Divinity and Wordship and real Sonship by Nature, whether, pagans, pres- 
ent unbelieving Jews, or Arians, are right in their disbelieving utterances regard- 
ing him and in their belief that He is a mere creature. 

(283). Romans ix., 5, “Christ, * * * who is over all, God, blessed 
forever.”’ 

(284). This is the translation of the Septuagint of Proverbs ix., 18; New- 


man in his translation gives the English Version instead, which is not the same 
in sense. 


(285). Take xvi., 8. 

(286). Job xviii, 5. The Septuagint has the future σβεσθήσεται, instead of 
the present σβέννυται which Athanasius uses here. Van Ess’ edition, Bagster’s, 
and Field’s edition all give σβεσθήσεται. 


(287). Matt. v., 15; Mark iv., 21; Luke xi., 33. 


222 Chapter LTT, 


$= 


hypocrisy, and utter other things, and tell of the patronage of their 
friends and of the fear inspired by Constantius, in order that those 
who have once gone over to them under the influence of their 
hypocrisy and of their promises may not see the foulness of their 
heresy. Is it not deserving of hatred for the additional reason 
also that it dares not speak out but is kept hid and is kept warm by 
its own friends, as a serpent? For whence did they bring together 
those short [Arian] expressions [of the Thalia] to themselves. Or 
from whom forsooth, have they taken such expressions, and dared to. 
utter them. They can not name any man who has supplied them 
with those [Arian] expressions. For what man is there, be he Greek 
or barbarian, WHO DARES TO ASSERT THAT HE WHOM HE CONFESSES 
TO BE GOD IS A CREATURE, and that He was not before He was made 
(288)? Or who is there who has believed in God, and yet refuses to 
believe Him when He says, 7his zs my beloved Son (289), and asserts 
that He is not a Son but @ work. On the contrary all will be the 
more angry with them for making such mad assertions. But they 
have no pretext for their heresies in the Scriptures either. For it 
has often been shown and will be shown now also, that those [pet] 
phrases [of theirs] are alien to the Oracles of God. ‘Therefore since 
all that remains is to say that THEY RECEIVED THEM FROM THE 
DEVIL, and have become mad, (for HE ALONE IS THE SOWER OF THOSE 
[Arian] EXPRESSIONS), come let us make a stand against him, for 
we wrestle against him acting in them, in order that the Lord help- 
ing us, and that the devil, as is usually the case, being overcome by 
arguments, they may be put to shame when they see him without 
resources who sowed the heresy among them, and may learn even 
though at a late time, that BEING ARIANS, THEY ARE NOT 
CHRISTIANS’’ (290), (291). 
PASSAGE 2. 


St. Athanasius, in Sections 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of his Zhird 
Oration Against the Arians, argues that because the Word has come 


(288). Greek, in Bright’s edition, page 11, Tic yap ἐστιν ἀνθρώπων ἢ “Ἕλλην ἢ 
BapBapoc, boric ὃν ὁμολογεῖ Θεὸν, τοῦτον τολμᾷ λέγειν ἕνα εἷναι TOV κτισμάτων, Kai,  OVK ἦν 
πρὶν ποιηθῇ. 


(289). Matt. iii., 17. 
(290). ᾿Αρειανοὶ ὄντες, οὐκ εἰσὶ Χριστιανοί. 


(291). St. Athanasius’ Oration I, Against the Arians, Sections 8, 9, Io, 
pages 8-11, of Bright’s edition. 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 223: 


out of the Father and because in I. Thessalonians iii., 11, St. Paul 
asks the Father and the Son for blessing, therefore the Son must be’ 
God and of the same substance with the Father, because no one would 
join a creature to God in prayer for help. 1. Thessalonians iii., 11, 
reads in Athanasius’ Greek here as follows, literally translated: 


“And may our God and Father Himself and our Lord Jesus 
Anointed direct our way to you.’ The place is on pages 416 to 421 
jn the Oxford translation. I have room here to quote but a little of 
it. In Section 12, Athanasius contends that whatever the Father 
gives he gives through God the Son, that no creature can share His 
prerogative of giving, and adds: 

“ΝΟ one therefore would pray to receive from God and the 
angels, or from any of the other creatures, nor would any one say, 
May God and the angel give to thee; but [he would pray to receive] 
from the Father and the Son because of their oneness and of their 
uniform [way of] giving. For those things which are given are given 
through the Son: and there is nothing which the Father does not inwork 
through the Son. For in that way he who receives has grace secure.’’ 


Here St. Athanasius teaches what elsewhere he urges again and 
again, that it is prerogative to Christ as Mediator to be the Interme- 
diary between the Father and His creatures, and to be the sole 
channel of grace from him to them. 


He proceeds to show therefore that in several places of the Old 
Testament God the Word was the Angel, that is Messenger of the 
Father to men, and that zf the patriarch Jacob had invoked a created 
angel with God it would have been a rejectiny of God. I quote: 

‘And if the patriarch Jacob, in blessing his grandchildren Ephraim 
and Manasseh, said, the God who fed me from my youth up unto this 
tay, the God who delivered me from all evils, bless these lads, yet none 
of created beings and of those who are [mere] angels by nature was 
he joining with the God who created them, nor rejecting the God 
who fed him, did he ask the blessing on his grandsons from an angel: 
but when he said He who delivered me from all evils, he showed that 
it was no created angel, but the Word of God whom He was joining 
with the Father and invoking in prayer: through whom God doth 
deliver whomsoever he will.”’ 

St. Athanasius anticipatively condemns in the foregoing the later 
custom of the Romish Communion in joining the names of the crea- 


224 Chapter LL, 
ee 
tures, Mary and Joseph, with that of the uncreated Son in prayez. I 
find it in the Romish work entitled, ‘‘ Zhe Raccolta; or Collectic: of 
Indulgenced Prayers; by Ambrose St. John of the Oratory of St. 
Philip Neri, Birmingham;’’ [J. H. Newman's Oratory, I presume]; 
Authorized translation, with an Appendix containing Devotions for 
Morning and Evening, for the Mass, the Penitential Psalms, the Holy 
Way of the Cross, Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Vespers, 
etc. New York, Ὁ. & J. Sadlier δὲ Co., 1859.’ On pages 5 and 6, 
we find that the said Raccolta was authorized by Pope Pius IX., by 
Cardinal Wiseman, and by Archbishop Hughes, of New York. Τί is, 
therefore, as being authorized by the Pope, azthoritative mm the high- 
est sense to every Romanist. 

On pages 87 and 88, I find the following plain contravention of 
what St. Athanasius says above against joining the names of crea- 
tures with God's in prayer. It is headed ‘‘19,’’ that is it is the nine- 
teenth set of indulgenced prayers. I quote it all: 


‘““THREE EJACULATIONS :—JESU, ETC. 


ΤῊ order to increase the devotion of the faithful to Jesus and 
Mary by invoking their most holy Names together with the name of 
St. Joseph, for the purpose of recommending to them the last 
moments of this life, on which our eternity depends, Pius VII., by a 


decree of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated April 28, 1807, 
granted— 


THE INDULGENCE OF 300 DAYS to any one, as often as he says 
devoutly, and with a contrite heart, the three following ejaculations: 


‘Jesus, Mary, Joseph, I give you my heart and my soul. 
‘“‘Jesus, Mary, Joseph, assist me in my last agony. 


“Jesus, Mary, Joseph, let my soul send forth her last sigh in 
peace with you to aid me.”’ 
Or Otherwise, 
‘“My Jesus, Mary, Joseph, earthly Trinity, 
Wholly to you I give my soul right heartily. 
My Jesus, Mary, Joseph, earthly Trinity, 
Aid ye my spirit’s flight in her last agony. 
My Jesus, Mary, Joseph, earthly Trinity, 
I die in peace with all, if in your company.’’ 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies 225 


If only one of the above is recited, then the same Pius VII. 
granted to the reciter 100 DAYS’ INDULGENCE.”’ 


Of course, if any such.creature-invoking practice as the Romish 
one above had existed in the Church in St. Athanasius’ day the 
Arians could at once have retorted it on him and so have broken the 
force of his argument. But no such soul-destroying trash then existed. 
All invocation of creatures is an zzsz/¢t to the all-sufficiency of Christ’s 
intercession; and, blessed be God, Paul tells us that it is sufficient; 
for in Hebrews vii., 25, he writes of our great High Priest who 
has gone within the vail, and stands in the presence of the Father to 
pray for us; ‘‘ Wherefore He ts able also to save them to the utter- 
most that come unto God by im, seeing He ever liveth to make inter- 
cession for them.’? THence, St. John writes, ‘“/fany man sin, we have 
an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He ts the 
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the 
whole world’ (1. Johnii., 1,2). And Christ tells us, in effect, that we can 
not go to the Father by any created intercessor and he prohibits all 
thought of our going to him by the Virgin Mary, by any departed 
Saint, or by any angel, or by any other creature when He proclaims: 
“Tam the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father 
but by me’’ (John xiv., 6). Indeed, so strong are the Six Ecumenical 
Councils in enforcing Christ’s prohibition of service to creatures 
(whether by bowing, prayer, or in any other way), in John iv., 10, 
that Anathema X., of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s XII., which were 
approved in the Third Ecumenical Synod, insists that God the Word 
Himself, and not a mere man, is our High Priest above, and Anathema 
VIII., curses those who fall into the Nestorian way of worshipping 
Christ’s humanity: and so does Anathema IX., of the Fifth Ecumen- 
ical Council. 

PASSAGE 4, 
OF ST. ATHANASIUS: ATHANASIUS ACCUSES THE ARIANS OF BEING 
POLYTHEISTS, AND RANKS THEM WITH THE HEATHEN. 


The passage which I am about to quote is in St. Athanasius’ 
Oration III, Against the Arians, Sections 15, 16. Just before St. 
Athanasius has been adducing examples from Scripture to show that 
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are only one consub- 
stantial and co-eternal God. In Sections 15 and 16, he goes on to 
charge the Arians with Jolytheism as follows: 


226 Chapter IIT. 


<= — 


‘‘For the Scriptures of God, wishing us to thus understand [that 
matter] have given such examples as we have mentioned in the 
remarks foregoing, from which we can shame the traitorous Jews, 
and refute the accusation of the pagans when they assert and suppose 
that because we assert the [doctrine of the] Trinity we also say that 
there are many gods. For as the [foregoing] illustration shows, we 
do not bring in three Originators (292) [of all things] or three 
Fathers, as the followers of Marcion and those of Manichaeus do: 
since we have not adduced the figure of three suns, but of sun and 
radiance; and the light which comes out of the sun is one with the 
radiance. So we acknowledge but one Originator (293) [of all things; ] 
and we assert that the Creator-Word has no other kind of Divinity 
than that of the only God, because He was born out of Him. But on 
the other hand therefore, THE ARIOMANIACS ARE JUSTLY BOUND TO 
ADMIT THE ACCUSATION OF POLYTHEISM, or even of Atheism [as to 
Christ], because they tdly talk of the Son as external [to the Father’s 
substance], αὐ a creature, and moreover of the Spirit as made out of 
nothing. For either they will say that the Word is not God; or 7 
they say that leis God because tt ts [so] written [in Scripture], κέ 
that He ts not of the Father's own substance, THEY WILI, BRING IN 
MANY Gods because of their difference of kind (294): unless forsooth 
they shall dare to say that by participation [of the Spirit] only He 
Himself (295) is called God just as all things also are. But even if 
they hold that view, they are likewise impious, because they say that 
the Word is one among all things (296). But let that never even 
come into our minds! For there is but one kind of Divinity, which 
is also in the Word (297), and but one God the Father, who is by 


(292.) Greek, τρεῖς ἀρχάσ. 

(293.) Greek, μίαν ἀρχήν. 

(294). ‘That is, because, on Arius’ theory, the Father is an uucreated God, 
and the Son a created God. 

(295). That is, Arius’ created God the Word. 


(296). ‘That is, on Arius’ theory, the Word being a mere creature is classed 
with other mere created things. 


(297). St. Athanasius’ Oration 777., Against the Arians, section 15, (page 
169 of Bright’s Greek); Μᾶλλον μὲν οὖν οἱ ᾿Αρειομανῖται δικαίως av σχοῖεν TO ἔγκλημα 
τῆς πολυθεότητος ἢ καὶ ἀθεότητος, ὅτι ἔξωθεν τὸν Ὑἱὸν κτίσμα, καὶ πάλιν τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ "μὴ 
ὄντος βαττολογοῦσιν. Ἢ γὰρ οὐκ εἶναι Θεὸν τὸν Λόγον φήσουσιν" ἢ λέγοντες Θεὸν μὲν διὰ τὸ 
γεγραμμένον, μὴ ἴδιον δὲ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ ἸΙατρὸς, πολλοὺς ἂν εἰσάγοιεν διὰ τὸ ἑτεροειδὲς 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Herestes. 227 
OE OEE SIRO AES EEE NEA, Ds ee Ee eee 
Himself as respects His being over all, and He appears in the Son, 
inasmuch as He pervades all things, and moreover in the Spirit, inas- 
much as He operates in Him (298) in all [men] through the Word. 
For thus we confess God to be but one through the Trinity: and we say 
it is a much more pious thing than the Divinity of the heretics which 
is of many kinds and of many parts; for we hold that the One 
Divinity exists in a Tri-unity. 

16. But if it be not so, but the Word is a creature and a work 
made out of nothing (299), either He is not real God, because He is 
Himself one of the creatures, or if, put to shame by the Scriptures, 
they give Him the name God (300), THEY MUST OF NECESSITY SAY 
THAT THERE ARE TWO GODS, one acreator, and the other A CREATURE; 
and THEY MUST SERVE TWO LORDS, ove Unmade, and the other made 
and a@ CREATURE; and they must have two faiths, one in the real God, 
and another in the one who was made and fashioned by themselves and 
called God [by them] (301). And it follows of necessity when they 
are so blind [as that] that when they bow (302), to the Unmade God 


αὐτῶν: εἰ μὴ ἄρα κατὰ μετοχὴν, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ πάντα, ““Θεὸν᾽» λέγεσθαι καὶ αὐτὸν λέγειν 
τολμήσουσιν ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο νομίζοντες ὁμοίως ἀσεβοῦσιν, ἕνα τῶν πάντων λέγοντες εἷναι τὸν 
Δόγον. Ἡμῶν δὲ τοῦτο μηδὲ εἰς τὸν νοῦν ποτε εἰσέλθοι! “Ἐν γὰρ εἶδος Θεότητος, ὅπερ ἐστὶ 
καὶ ἐν τῷ Adyo, εἴς. 

(298). That is, in the Spirit. 

(299). Here we see again two of the heretical Arian expressions which are 
condemned in the Nicene Creed. 


(300). Anathema VIII., of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s XII., forbids us, under 
pain of Anathema, to apply the name God to the Son’s created humanity. 
According to that utterance of Cyril, which was approved by the Third Ecumeni- 
cal Synod, we must apply that term to nothing but God Himself. Compare Cyril’s 
Letter to Nestorius which has the XII. Anathemas at its end, and especially 
the part of it which is on page 64 of P. E. Pusey’s Zhree Epistles of S. Cyril, 
Archbishop of Alexandria, where the same condemnation is found, 


(301). That is, the Arian created God the Word. 


(302). Greek, προσκυνοῦσι, literally, ‘‘bow’’; but as bowing is one of the acts 
of worship in God’s Word, and the most common of them all, (for we bow when 
we pray, when we prostrate ourselves, etc.), therefore it is very commonly put 
for them all in Scripture and in the early Christian writers. owzng is of three 
kinds, as is every other act of worship; for it is used (1), to express a mere actof 
human respect, which we give to all men high and low. In this case it is not 
an act of worship at all, and is proper and right. 

2. It may be given to images painted or graven, to altars, relics, or to created 
or imaginary beings like the gods of the heathen, for instance, as am act of 


228 Chapter 211. 


they must turn their backs on the made God; and that when they go 
to the creature they must turn away from the Creator (303). For 


religious service relative or absolute, That sort of bowing is branded in the 
Scriptures as soul-damuing. 

3. Bowing may be given to God alone, and then it is az act of acceptable 
and soul-saving religious service (Matt. iv., 10). I have treated more fully of 
this topic on Ephesus, the Third Ecumenical Council, in this series. 


Newman here renders the word, and well in substance, ‘‘zworship.’’ Later 
paganized writers have tried to make such a distinG@tion between the Greek 
words λατρεύω, 7 serve, and προσκυνέω, 7 bow, as-to imply that λατρεύω means a 
higher kind of worship than προσκυνέω does, and must be limited to God alone; 
and that it is right to give the worship expressed by προσκυνέω to creatures, such 
as saints, angels, etc., and to images, relics, and to other mere things. But the 
fact is that they are both used in the New Testament, for the highest worship, 
that is for that to God alone. Indeed προσκυνέω is much oftener used in it for 
worship to God than λατρεύω is. The forbidden worship of the beast and his 
image and the forbidden act of St. John to the angel are expressed by προσκυνέω 
(Rev. xiv., 9, 11, and xvi., 2; Rev. xix., 10, and xxii, 8, 9. 

On the other hand it is used for the worship of God Himself in John iv., 21, 
22, 24, in Heb. i, 6, and often both in the New Testament and in Ante-Nicene 
Christian writers. The attempted evasion of the just accusation of creature- 
worship and image-worship by making such a distinction between those two 
Greek words as is made to-day by the creature-worshipping Latins, and by those 
Greeks, who hold to such soul-damning sins is without ground in Holy Writ, or 
in the Ante-Nicene Christian writers. In the very passage of St. Athanasius 
above he uses them both for the worship of God; for above he says of the Arians 
“and they serve two Lords”? (καὶ dio Kupiowg λατρεύειν). All the passages where 
λατρεύω and προσκυνέω occur in the New Testament may be found in the English- 
man’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament, under those two words. On 
the other hand, λατρεύω, “7 serve,”’ is used both of the service of the true God, 
as, for instance, in Matthew iv., 10; Hebrews xii., 28; etc.; and for the forbidden 
worship of the Host of Heaven in Ads vii., 42, and for the service of creatures in 
Romans i, 25. The fact is, that there is only one kind of worship tolerated by 
God, and that is the Worship of Himself. All other kinds are forbidden by Him 
in Holy Writ and damn the soul to the endless flame, (Luke iv., 8; I Cor. vi., 
9, 10; Galat. v., 19 to 22; Rev. xxi., 8). 


(303.) This accords with the common portraiture of things in the Scriptures 
where the prophets speak of the Israelites who worshipped animate creatures 
by bowing, invocation, etc., and mere things such as the golden calf in the 
wilderness, at the same time as they worshipped Jehovah, as having forsaken 
Jehovah; for they violated His fundamental law to worship Him alone, and so in 
that fundamental sense forsook Him to their own eternal loss. For He pro- 
claims Himself again and again as the Jealous God, who will not give His glory 


to another, nor His praise to graven images (Exod. xx., 1-7; Isaiah xlii., 8; Matt. 
1ν-, 10, Etc). 


Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 229 


they can not see the latter in the former because their natures and 
operations are foreign to each other and different from each other. 
And so thinking, they will certainly add more Gods still [to them]. 
For that is what those who have fallen away from God have taken in 
hand to do. Why then, when the Arians so infer and hold, do they 
not reckon themselves to be of the number of THE PAGANS? For those 
pagans also, like them, serve the creature contrary to the God who 
created all things (304). But yet they flee from the name pagan, in 
order that they may deceive those who are without mind, though they 
secretly hold an opinion similar to theirs (305). For their wise say- 
ing, as they are wont to call it, [that is] ‘ We do not assert two Un- 
made’ [Beings], they plainly say to deceive the simple; for when they 
make the assertion, We say not two Unmade Beings’ THEY [neverthe- 
less] ASSERT Two Gops, and that they have different natures, for one 
God is a made God and the other is Unmade. And though the 
pagans serve one Unmade and many made gods, whereas those 
[Arians] serve one Unmade God and one made God, they do not even 
then differ from the pagans. For He who is called by them [the 
Arians] @ made God is one of many Gods: and, on the other hand, 
the many gods of the pagans have the same [created] nature as that 
one [created] God [of the Arians]: for both He and they are creatures. 
Wretched are they, and so much the more misled, in that their minds 
are against Christ: for they have fallen away from the truth, and 
have gone beyond the treason of the Jews by denying the Christ, and 
God-hated as they are, THEY WALLOW ALONG WITH THE PAGANS BY 
SERVING A CREATURE AND DIFFERENT GODS. For there is one God, 
and not many, and His Word is one, and not many’’ (306). 


(304). Romansi., 25. 
(305). That is, like the pagans, they hold to more than one God, and like 


them hold that it is right to worship a creature, that is their created God the 
Word. 


(306). St. Athanasius’ Ovation 111., Against the Arians, Section 16, (pages 
169 and 170, in Bright’s Greek edition). 

Ei δὲ οἱ μὲν “Ελλῃνες ἑνὶ ἀγενήτῳ καὶ πολλοῖς yevytoig λατρείουσιν, οὗτοι δὲ ἑνὶ ayev- 
777) καὶ ἐνὶ γενητῷ οὐδ οὕτω διαφέρουσιν “Ἑλλήνων. Ὅ τε γὰρ παῤ αὐτῶν λεγόμενος “ γενητὸς" 
εἰς ἐκ πολλῶν ἐστι" καὶ οἱ πολλοὶ δὲ πάλιν τῶν “Ἑλλήνων τὴν αὐτὴν τῷ ἐνὶ τούτῳ φύσιν ἔχουσι" 
καὶ οὗτος γὰρ κἀκεῖνοι κτίσματά εἰσιν. "Αθλιοι, καὶ πλεῖον ὕσον ἐβλάβησαν κατὰ Χριστοῦ. 
φρονήσαντες. ᾿Ἐξέπεσαν γάρ τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ τὴν μὲν ᾿Τουδαίων προδοσίαν ὑπερέβησαν 
ἀρνούμενοι τὸν Χριστὸν, τοῖς δὲ "“Ἑλλησι συγκυλίονται, κτίσματι καί διαφόροις θεοῖς λατρε- 
ὕοντες οἱ θεοστυγεῖς, ic γὰρ Θεός ἐστι, καὶ οὐ πολλοὶ, καὶ εἰς ὁ τούτου Λόγος καὶ οὐ 
πολλοί. 


230 Chapter 707. 


PASSAGE 5, 


OF ST. ATHANASIUS, IN WHICH HE BRANDS THE ARIAN ASSERTION, 
THAT THE SON IS A CREATED GOD AS RESULTING IN 
POLYTHEISM. IT IS FROM SECTION 64, OF 
HIS THIRD ORATION AGAINST 
THE ARIANS. 


In the context just before the following passage, St. Athanasius 
is engaged in refuting an attempted evasion of the Arians, which con- 
sisted in saying that, 

‘““ The Son was made by the purpose and will of the Father,’’ and 
replies that that expression really amounts to the same thing as the 
other Arian statements, which, I would add, were condemned in the 
Nicene Creed, namely, 

‘“ There was cnce when the Son of God was not;’’ and 


33, 


“716 Son was made out of nothing,’ and 


) 


“376 ts a creature. 


Athanasius compares the Arian do¢trine to the Valentinian. At 
‘the end he concludes that their making the Son a creature ends in 
Polytheism. 1 quote that part: 


‘“The many headed heresy of the godless men falls into POLY- 
THEISM AND UNMEASURED MADNESS, in which they wish the Son to 
be ‘a creature’ and to have been made ‘out of nothing,’ and express 
in another way the same errors [as the Valentinians] by bringing for- 
ward their phrase [the Son was made by the] ‘purpose and will’ [of 
the Father], which certainly in all fairness should be asserted only of 
things made and of things created (307). 


PASSAGE 6, 


Athanasius in Section 13, of his Second Discourse of the Four 
Against the Arians, argues that because the Word was bowed to by 
Abraham as Lord, He must have been God. I quote it, mainly as in 
the Oxford translation : 


“Tfthen they [the Arians] suppose that the Saviour was not 


(307). St. Athanasius’ Oration 777. Against the Arians, Section 64, page 
217 of Bright’s edition: ἙΕὑρίσκεται τῶν ἀθέων ily fon υκέφαλος αἵρεσις εἰς πολυθεότητα 
πίπτουσα καὶ ἄμετρον μανίαν, ἐν ἡ ““ κτίσμα" καὶ ““ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων" θέλοντες εἶναι τὸν Ὑἱὸν, 


ἑτέρως τὰ αὐτὰ σημαίνουσι. 


Nic@a, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 231 


Lord and King, even before He became man and endured the cross, 
but then began to be Lord, let them know that they are openly utter- 
ing again the errors of the Samosatan (308). But since as we have 
quoted and declared above, He zs Lord and King, everlasting, SEEING 
THAT ABRAHAM BOWS TO HIM AS LORD (309), and,Moses says, And 
the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha brimstone and fire 
from the Lord out of Heaven (310), and David sings, 7he Lord said 
unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand (311); and Thy throne, O 
God, is forever and ever, a sceptre of righteousness ts the sceptre of Thy 
Kingdom (312); and, Thy Kingdom ts an everlasting Kingdom (313). 
it is plain that even before He became man, He was King and Lord 
everlasting, being Image (314) and Word (315) of the Father. And 
the Word being everlasting Lord and King, it is very plain again 
that Peter did not say that the Substance of the Son was made, but 
spake of His Lordship over us, which came to pass when He became 
man, and redeeming all men by the cross, became Lord of all and 
ποίησ ΘΗ ΘΙ (216), τ: 


(308). Paul of Samosata, who made the Son to be a mere creature, and was 
condemined and deposed for that heresy in the Council of Antioch, A. D. 269. 

(309). Genesis xvil., 1-4, and after. Athanasius and the ancient Fathers 
generally believed that the angel here mentioned as bowed /o, that is as worship- 
ped, and in Genesis xlviii., 16 as 7zvoked, (aud both bowing and invocation are 
acts of religious service in Holy Writ), and who is called God by Jacob in Genesis 
xxxii., 30, was God the Word before His Incarnation, They so judged because 
of His receiving those two a¢ts of religious service, and because He was called 
God. And that view is borne out by such passages as Genesis xii., 1: Genesis 
xv., 7, and after, where that Angel, that is Messenger of the Father, asks for 
worship from Abraham, who gives it in the form of sacrifice: Nehemiah ix., 7: 
Acts vii., 1-4, and I. Cor. x., 4,9. Their view is undoubtedly correct, for the 
notion that a mere creature was bowed to as God, and invoked, and called God 
would land us in creature-worship and polytheism. 

(310). Genesis xix., 24. 

τ sPsalm\cxor: 

(312). Psalm xlv., 6. 

(313). Psalm cxlv., 13. 

(οτος ὙΠ Comsive. Δπ| (601. 1, τον 

(215); Jonna. 1. 

(316). The reference is to Peter’s language in Acts ii., 36, ‘‘ Therefore let 
all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, 
whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.’’ The Arians perverted the 
text to favor their own base and unworthy ideas of the Eternal Logos. 

(317). The Greek is found in Bright’s edition of St. Athanasius’ Ovations 
. Against the Arians, page 81. 


232 Chapter 711. 


PASSAGE 7, 
OF ATHANASIUS, MEN-SERVICE AND CREATURE-SERVICE. 


The learned Suicer in his Thesaurus thus defines the expression 
creature-service, and-shows how the Orthodox Athanasius applies it to 
the Arians; which, in effect, even the Nestorian Theodoret also does: 


I quote: 
‘“CREATURE-WORSHIP, 


(Ἀτισματολατρεία). 


‘“The Lexicons do not have this expression. It means che worship 
of creatures. 'Theophylact has used this expression in his remarks on 
verse 6, Chapter II., of the Epistle to the Romans, page 21, as 
follows : 

“376 said above that the reward for their error and for their crea- 
ture-service was rendered to the wicked in those things in which they 
were guilty of [spiritual and other] whoredom.’ [compare Romans 1., 
23 to Romans ii., 5, inclusive]. 

“ Creature-service (χτισματολατρεία) can be imputed to the Arians, 
and they themselves can be deservedly called creataure-servers 
(ατισματολάτραι), because they said that the Son of God is a creature, 
but nevertheless worshipped that same Son. 


‘The following passage of an Oration of Athanasius Agaznust 
the Arians, tome 2, page 22, refers to that point: 


“The apostle charges it as a crime on the pagans that they worship 
creatures, when he says, that, they served the creature contrary to God 
the Creator. But those men [the Arians] who say that the Lord is a 
creature, and serve [Tim as a creature, in what do they differ from the 
pagans ?? 

‘‘ And what Theodoret writes in that same place of theapostle, on 
Romans 1.,) 25, page 19, refers to the same error: It is as follows: 


PASSAGE 8, 


“ες Those also who call the Sole-Born Son of God a creature, and 
nevertheless worship £Tim as God are subject to those accusations,’’? 
[that is he means to the accusations made by the Apostle Paul in 
Romans i., 25, against the heathen that they ‘‘changed the truth of 
God into the lie and worshipped and served the creature contrary to the 
Creator’’|. For the same reason the Arians are accused of JZan- 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 233: 


Ϊ Vorship (ἀνθρωπολατρεία) ; they are called Man-worshippers (ἀνθρωπολά- 
spat), and are said fo worship a man (ἀνθρωπολατρεῖν). See under the 
words *AvOpwrolarpeta [that is, ‘‘Man-Worship’’], ᾿Ανθρωπολατρέω [that 
is “7 worship a man’’], and ᾿Ανθρωπολάτρης᾽" [that is, ‘ Man-wor- 
shipper’’]: that is, he means, those expressions in Suicer’s 7hesaurus. 


PASSAGE 9. 


The following passage from St. Athanasius’ Four Orations 
Against the Arians, Oration Second, Sections 23 and 24, makes. 
against any religious bowing or other worship to any creature, and 
impliedly against the Nestorian worship of the Man also whom God the 
Word put on; (Newman has given his own translation of the passage 
on pages 313, 314 of the Oxford translation of St. Athanasius’ 77ea- 
tises Against Arianism): 1 translate, premising first that Athanasius 
has just replied to the sophism and attempted evasion of the Arians. 
who said that the Son is a creature and a work, but ‘‘not as one of the 
creatures.’’ ΤῸ this Athanasius replies that nevertheless, this leaves. 
Him a creature still, and then by way of showing its falsity shows 
that if He be worshipped because He is a superior creature, by the 
creatures inferior to Him, then ‘‘each of lower creatures ought to wor- 
ship what excels ttself”’ And then he lays down the alone Orthodox 
principle that ‘‘ Zo God alone appertains bowing, and this the very 
angels know, though they excel other beings in glory, yet they are all 
creatures and not to be bowed to,’’ aud this he shows at length. I quote 
all this part of the passage : 


‘‘Moreover if, as the [Arian] heretics hold, the Son were ‘a 
creature or a work, but not, as one of the creatures,’ because of His 
excelling them in glory, it were needful that Scripture should describe 
and display Him by a comparison in His favor with the other works; 
for instance that it should say that He is greater than Archangels, 
aud more honourable than the Thrones, and brighter than sun and 
moon, and greater than the heavens. But it does not in fact so 
describe Him: but the Father shows Him to be His Own and Sole 
Son, saying, Zhou art My Son (318), and This ἐς My beloved Son, in 
whom Lam well pleased (319). And therefore the angels ministered 


(318). Psalm ii., 7; Acts xiii., 33; Heb. i., 5; Heb. v., 5. 
(319). Matt. iii., 17; Matt. xvii., 5; Mark i., 11; Mark ix., 7; Luke iii., 22; 
ἘΠ ΞΕ απ. .95; ΕΠ Peter 15.017. 


234 Chapter 714. 


unto Him (320) as being one beyond themselves, and He is bowed to 
by them (321), not merely as being greater in glory, but as being a 
separate [Person] beyond and aside from all the creatures, and as 
beyond and aside from themselves,’ and as being the Father’s Sole 
[and] Own Son, as it relates to His Substance. For if He was bowed 
to as excelling them in glory, each of the lower creatures ought to 
bow to every other one who is above himself. But this is not the 
case, for creature does not bow to creature, but servant to Master, and 
creature to God (322). ‘Therefore Peter the apostle hinders Cornelius 
who wished to bow [to him], [by] saying, 7 a/so am a man (323); and 
an angel in the Revelations hinders, John when he wishes to bow [to 
him by] saying, See thou do zt not; 7 am thy fellow-slave, and of thy 
brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the sayings of this book: 
bow to God (324). Therefore τέ belongs to GOD ALONE to be bowed 
to; and this the angels themselves know, for though they excel [or 
‘fare above’’] others in their glories, nevertheless they are all crea- 
tures and are not of those who are bound to, but of those who bow to 
the Master. Therefore when Manoah the father of Samson wished to 
offer sacrifice to the angel, the angel forbade him [or ‘‘prevented 
him’’] saying, offer not to me, but to God (325).”’ 


But [on the other hand] THE LORD IS BOWED TO even by the 
angels: for it is written, Azd let all the angels of God bow to Him (326), 
and [He is bowed to] by all the nations (327), as Isaiah says, Heyvpt 


(320)., Matt. ἦν.» 11; Mark 1,, 13: 

(321). Heb. i., 6, ‘‘And let all the angels of God Jdowto him.’’ So the 
‘Greek, literally translated, is. 

(322). Κτίσμα yap κτίσματι ov προσκυνεῖ, ἀλλὰ δοῦλος Δεσπῦτην Kai κτίσμα Θεόν. 

(323). Acts χ., 26. The “worshipped’’ of our Common English Version in 
Acts x., 25; is in Greek προσεκύνησαν; so that the whole of that place is, ‘‘ And as 
Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and bowed 
to him,’’ that is he prostrated himself to him, for there was in this particular 
case a falling down at Peter’s feet before the bowing to him was done. 
Tpocexivycav expresses the bowing only. 

(324). Rev. xxii., 8, 9; and Rey. xix., 10. The ‘‘worship’’ of our common 
Version is ‘‘bow”’ in all those places. The latter is the exact and only right 
rendering. 

(325). Judges xiii., 16. 

(326). ἘΠ. 1: 6: 

(327). Or, ‘‘by all the Gentiles,’’ better perhaps. 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 235 


hath discovered thee (328), and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and 
the Sabeans, tall men, shall come through to thee and they shall be thy 
slaves (329). Then'thereafter it reads, did they shall bow to thee, and 
by [or zz] thee (330), shall they pray, for God zs in thee, and there ts no 
God besides thee (331). And He accepts His disciples’ worship, and 
certifies them who He is, saying, Do ye not call Me, The Lord and the 
Teacher? And ye say well, for sol am (332). And when Thomas 
says to Him, JZy Lord and My God (333), He allows him so to speak; 
aye more, He accepts him [by] not hindering him. For He Himself 
is, as the other Prophets say and as David sings, 7he Lord of Powers, 
the Lord of Sabaoth which is interpreted, Zhe Lord of Armies and 
very and Almighty God, even though the Arians burst themselves 
at this. But HE HAD NOT BEEN BOWED ΤῸ, NOR HAD THOSE THINGS 
BEEN SAID OF HIM, IF HE HAD BEEN A CREATURE AT ALL, 


‘But now, because He τς not a creature, but the own Offspring of the 
Substanee of the God who is bowed to (334), and Son by [His Divine] 
Nature, THEREFORE fe ἧς bowed to and ts believed to be God and Lord 
of Armies and Ruler (335) and Almighty as the Fatheris: for He Him- 
self has said, AW things that the Father hath are Mine (336). For it 
belongs to the Son to have the things of the Father and to be such that 
the Father is seen in Him (337), and that through Him all things were 
made (338), and that in Him the Salvation of all both comes to pass 
and stands fast’’ (339), (340). 


(328). Or, ‘hath watched [for thee].”’ 

(329). Or, ‘‘servants,’? δοῦλοι, It isthe Septuagint of Isaiah xlv., 14. 

(330). Ibid. The ἐν σοὶ προσεύξονται, refers as understood by Athanasius 
here to praying tothe Father in Christ’s name (compare John xv., 16.: John 
XVi., 23, 24, 26,) and the Greek ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ, of Philip. ii., το, which 
may be rendered, “παῖ in the name of Jesus every knee should * * * bow,” 
that is to the Father, or ‘‘at the name’’ etc., to the Son. 

(331). Isaiah xlv., 14. 

(332). John xiii., 13. 

(333). John xx., 28. 

(334). τοῦ προσκυνουμένου Θεοῦ, 

(325). ᾿Εξουσιαστὴς. ‘Lord of Hosts’’ may be used instead of ‘“‘Lord of Armies.”’ 

(336). John xvi., 15, 

(337). John xiv., 9. 

(5385). Johns 5. ἜΠΡ ἢ, 2 

(639) Acts ῖν., 12. ΠῚ  Πδοσ ν, Ὁ; Εἰθθε ν., Onetc: 

(340). The Greek of the above place is found in Bright’s Greek edition of 
St. Athanasius’ Orations Against the Arians, pages ΟἹ, 92 and 93. 


236 Chapter III, 


PASSAGE I0, 
OF ATHANASIUS: 


Athanasius, in Section 3, of his Epistle to Adelphius as quoted on 
page 210, of vol. iv., of Smith and Wace’s Déétionary of Christian 
Biography, writes: 

‘We do not worship a creature. God forbid! That is the 
error of the heathen and the Arians.”’ 


PASSAGE 11, 


OF ATHANASIUS: 


_ Athanasius, at the end of Section 6 of his £pzséle to Adelphius, 
writes : : 
‘“‘Let them [the Arians] know, that when we worship the Lord 
in flesh, we are not worshipping a creature, but the Creator who has 
put on the created body, as we have said before’’ (341). 


See that section quoted in full elsewhere in this work. 


The word rendered ‘‘worship,’”’ in both the last passages above 
means literally ‘‘¢o dow,’ that act of worship being the most common, 
and so being used for every other, as is common in the New 
Testament and in the ancient Christian writers. 


PASSAGE 12. 


Athanasius, in a noteworthy passage, insists that God the Word 
took flesh and became Man, and redeemed Man lest we should name 
another Lord besides the Word, that is the Man put on by Him, and 
fall into the Arian and Greek [that is ‘‘heathen’’] folly of serving 
the creature besides the all-creating God. The passage is found in 
his Treatises Against Arianism, Oxford English translation, Discourse 
2, pages 300, 301. Athanasius is dealing with the words of the 
Apostle Peter in A@ts 2, 36, and other passages which the Arians 
perverted to bolster up their service to the Word as a creature. And 
he has been contending that God the Word is our Apostle and High 


(341). Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 26, col. 1080, Sz. Athanasius’ 
Epistle to Adelphius, a Bishop: Kai γινωσκέτωσαν, ὅτι, τὸν Κύριον ἐνεσαρκὶ προσκυ- 
γοῦντες, οὗ κτισματε προσκυνοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ τὸν Κτίστην ἐνδυσάμενον τὸ κτιστὸν σῶμα, 


καθὰ προείπομεν. 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 237 


Priest with the Father, (see id., pages 290, 291), and then further on 
states as follows, why He, that is God the Word, and not a Man, 
should redeem: 


‘For it was not fitting that the redemption should be accomplished 
by another, but by Him who is Lord by Nature, lest though we were 
created through the Son (342), we should nevertheless name another, 
Lord, and fall into the Arian and pagan folly of serving a creature, 
contary to the God who created all things’’ (343). 


This doctrine was afterwards enshrined in St. Cyril of Alexan- 
dria’s Anathemas X., XI. and XII., which were approved with the 
whole XII. Chapters by the Third Ecumenical Council, A. D. 431. 


PASSAGE 13, 


A PASSAGE OF ST. ATHANASIUS SHOWING THAT HE ECONMICALLY 
ATTRIBUTED TO GOD THE WORD THE SUFFERINGS OF THE 
MAN PUT ON BY HIM, TO AVOID INVOKING A CREATURE 
AND OTHER ACTS OF CREATURE-SERVICE. CYRIL 
OF ALEXANDRIA APPROVES IT AND 
TEACHES THE SAME DOCTRINE. 


In a noteworthy passage, in Section 32 of his 7hzrd Discourse 
Against the Arians, Athanasius, the great archbishop of Alexandria, 
tells us that the reason for ascribing Economically to the Word the 
sufferings of the Man put on by the Word is to avoid serving a crea- 
ture by prayer or in any other way (344). After showing in a long 
passage that the Arians failed to see, as, I may add, the Nestorians_ 


(342). Johni., 3, where the Greek means ¢hrough Him,”’ δὺ αὐτοῦ, and I. 
Cor. viii., 6, where the same Greek words are found in the clause, ” And we 
through Fim.”’ 


(343). St Athanasius Ovation 11. Against the Arians, Section 15, at the 
end: (page 83 of Bright’s Greek edition of S¢. Athanasius Orations Against the 
lrians): 

Οὐ yap ἔπρεπε SV ἑτέρου τὴν λύτρωσιν γενέσθαι, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦ φύσει Κυρίου, ἵνα μὴ διὰ 
Ὑἱοὺ μὲν κτιζώμεθα, ἄλλο» δὲ ἹΚώριον ὀνομάζωμεν, καὶ πέσωμεν εἰς τὴν ᾿Αρειανὴν καὶ τὴν 
Ἐλληνικὴν ἀφροσύνην, κτίσει δουλεύοντες παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα τὰ πάντα Θεόν. 


(344). This is St. Athanasius’ and St. Cyril of Αἰθχαπάᾶτσί αἱ β dodtrine of 
Economic Appropriation which was approved by the Third Ecumenical Council. 
I will treat of it, God willing, when I come to that Synod. Τί is, alas! too much 
forgotten in our day. 


238 Chapter IT. 


afterwards failed to see, that in the Son we are always to keep in 
mind not two equal Natures; but one infinitely Supreme Nature, God 
the Word; and one infinitely lower nature, the human, which is the 
Word’s clothing, that is the Man whom He put on and in whom He 
performed the human things, he adds: 


“Tt became the Lord in putting on human flesh, to put it on 
whole with its own sufferings, that as we say that the body was his 
own, so also it may be said that the sufferings of the body belonged 
to Him [God the Word] alone, even though they did not touch Him 
so far as His divinity is concerned. If the body had been another’s, 
the sufferings too would have been said to belong to that other. But 
since the flesh is the Word's, (for the Word became flesh) (345), of 
necessity then the sufferings also of the flesh are to be ascribed to Him 
Whose the flesh is. And to Whom [the Word] the sufferings are 
ascribed, such especially as are the being condemned, the being 
scourged, the thirsting, and the cross, and the death, and the other 
infirmities (346) of the body, to Him too belong the setting of things 
right and the grace (347). For this cause therefore, consistently and 
fittingly such sufferings are ascribed not to another but to the Lord; 
that the grace (348) may be from Him, and that we may not become 
servers of another (349) but TRULY WORSHIPPERS OF GOD, BECAUSE 
WE INVOKE NO CREATURE 20r any common man, but Him who has 
come out of God by Nature and is the very Son, even that very one be- 
come man, but yet nothing less the Lord Himself and God and Saviour’ 


(350). 


(345). Johni., 14. 

(346). Or “weak things,” ἀσθένειαι. 

(347). Or ‘‘favor,’? χάρις: 

(348). That is, ‘“favor,’? χάρις 

(349). The Greek as in Coleti Conc., tom. 3, col. 1413, has here instead of 
“and that we may not become servers of another,” καὶ μὴ εἰδωλολάτραι γινόμεθα. 
The margin gives γενώμεθα for γινόμεθα. I would therefor translate ‘‘and that we 
may not become idolaters,” or “and that we may not become servers of an image,” 
the image in this case being a man made like all other men in the image of God, 
as Genesis i., 26, 27, teaches. 

(350). Coleti Conc., tom. 3, col. 1413. 1 quote the whole of this part of the 
Greek, as there: Ava τοῦτο τοίνυν ἀκολούθως καὶ πρεπόντως οὐκ ἄλλου, ἀλλὰ τοῦ Κυρίου 
λέγεται τὰ τοιαῦτα πάθη, ἵνα καὶ ἡ χάρις Tap αὐτοῦ εἴη καὶ μὴ εἰδωλολάτραι γινόμεθα [αλ.. 
γινώμεθα], ἀλλὰ ἀληθῶς Θεοσεβεῖς, OTe μηδένα τῶν γεννητῶν, μὴ δέ κοινόν τινα ἄνθρωπον, 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 239 
= ------ϑοϑ- 5. 5 9. 6 Ὁ 

Here the worship is evidently given not after the Nestorian 
fashion to the man put on, but to God the Word, in accordance with 
Anathema VIII. of Cyril’s XII., which were approved by the Third 
Ecumenical Council, and with the Ninth Anathema of the Fifth 
Ecumenical Council. 

A noteworthy fact in connection with this very passage is that St. 
Cyril of Alexandria quotes it approvingly in his Defence of the T'welve 
Chapters Against the Oriental Bishops under Anathema XII. (351). 
It is certainly appropriate to the Defence of that Anathema, which 
reads as in the same Apology as follows: 


‘“ANATHEMATISM XII. 


“If any one does not confess that the Word of God suffered in 
flesh, and was crucified in flesh, and tasted death in flesh and became 
the First Brought Forth from among -the dead (352) on the ground 
that He is Life and Life-Producing as God, let him be Anathema.” 


(353): 

The carefulness and even particularity of the Six Ecumenical 
Councils in guarding and explaining the prerogatives of God the 
Word as our Sole Mediator, Intercessor, and Atoner, are simply beau- 
tiful and wonderful. So when we bow or pray to Him we are to 


ἀλλὰ τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ φύσει καὶ ἀληθινὸν Υἱὸν, τοῦτον γενόμενεν ἄνθρωπον, οὐδὲν ἧττον τὸν Κύριον: 
αὐτὸν καὶ Θεὸν καὶ Σωτῆρα εἐπικαλοῦμεθα. * * * This is found without any im- 
portant difference on page 187 of Prof. Bright’s reprint of the Benedictine text of 
the Oration of St. Athanasius Against the Arians, (Oxford, 1873), except that 
the latter has καὶ μὴ ἄλλου λάτραι γινώμεθα, where Coleti, as above quoted, has καὶ 
μὴ εἰδωλολάτραι γινόμεθα. There are a few other differences between the two 
editions on this passage, but they are of little importance, for they are merely 
verbal and do not perceptibly affect the sense. The passage is in Section 32, of 
St. Athanasius’ 7hird Oration Against the Arians. As in Cyril’s Defence of 
the XII. Chapters against the Orientals, in Coleti Conc., tom, 3, col. 1413, the 
passage above translated is preceded by the words: “And it was shown that 
He had «a body not in [mere] appearance [only] but in [very] truth.” Then, 
without any break, follow almost word for word the words above, ‘‘/¢ became 
the Lord in putting on,” ete. 


(351). See it in Coleti Conc., tom. 3, col. 1413, and on page 187 of Bright’s 
four Orations of St. Athanasius Against the Arians according to the Benedic- 
tine text, (Oxford, 1873). 


(352.) Col. i., 1% 
(353). Coleti Conc., tom. 3, col. 1408, 


240 Chapter 117. 


address His omnipresent and omniscient Divinity, never his mere 
separate humanity, for it is a creature and does not possess God’s 
attributes to hear us everywhere, and so it may not be separately 
worshipped. ‘That is the teaching of those two remarkable Anathemas, 
and he who obeys them will not be a creature-server (χτιστολάτρηφ), 
but a server of God alone, as we are all commanded by Christ Him- 
self to be in Matthew iv., το, in the Words, ‘‘ Dhow shalt bow to the Lord 
thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’ For surely any man of 
logical mind should see at once that if in those Anathemas we are 
forbidden to give any act of worship separately, after the Nestorian 
fashion, to the human nature of Christ, which is the most perfect and 
the highest of all created things, much more are we anathematized if 
we give any act of religious service, be it bowing, prayer or any other, 
to the blessed Virgin Mary, who brought forth God the Word in flesh, 
to any archangel or angel or Saint departed, or to any other creature 
whomsoever, or to any created or made thing. 


PASSAGE 14. 


St. Epiphanius, in Section 50 of his Axcoratus, shows that bow- 
ing as an act of religious service is prerogative to Divinity, and that 
as it is given to the Son of God in Scripture, therefore He must be 
God. I quote. He is opposing creature-servers of his day: 


“And let them not vainly heap up blasphemies to themselves. 
For if the Son is a creature He is not to be bowed to, according to 
the doctrine of those [texts of Scripture]. For it is foolish to bow to 
a creature, and to do away the first commandment which saith, H7ear 
O Israel, the Lord our God is [but] one Lord (354). 7) herefore the 
Holy Word is not a creature because He ts to be bowed to. ‘The dis- 
ciples bowed to Him (355). ‘The angels in heaven bow to Him, [for 
Scripture saith],, And, let all the angels of God bow to flim,” 


(356) (357). 


δου Sh ssa dig Rea ate br oe PARI ν ἢ ΜΌΡ.,......... 5:1. ς ᾿- 

(354). Mark xii., 29, Deut. vi., 4. 

(355). (Matt. =xvili., 17; John ix., 38; etc: 

(356). St. Epiphanius’ Axcoratus, Section 50, (page 144, vol. i., of Din- 
dorf’s edition), Ei yap κτιστὸς ἐστιν ὁ Ὑἱὸς, ov προσκυνητὸς, κατὰ τὸν ἐκείνων λόγον. 
Μωρὸν γάρ ἐστι κτίσην προσκυνεῖν καὶ ἀθετεῖν τὴν πρώτην ἐντολὴν τὴν λέγουσαν, “" * AKOvE 
"Topas, Κύριος εἰς ἐστιν." Οὐ κτιστὸς τοίνυν ὁ ἅγιος Λόγος, ὅτι προσκυνητός. ἹΙροσεκύνησαν 
αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ. Προσκυνοῦσιν αὐτῷ ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανῷ, “και; Προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ 
πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ." 


(357). eb; 1,, 6: 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 241 


PASSAGE 15. 


St. Epiphanius, writing on Heresy LXIX., that of the 470- 
maniacs, in Section 31, charges the Arians with giving Christ the 
position of the execrable and detestable image, that is idol, set up by 
Nebuchadnezzar to be worshipped, in that they made Him a creature 
and then worshipped Him as such. In other words, they made Him 
a false God, because they made Him a created God. For there is no 
other God than the uncreated Jehovah. Epiphanius is here insisting 
especially on the point, that the whole question of His being wor- 
shipped depends wholly on His being uncreated God. He is dealing 
with the passage in John xvii., 3, ‘‘ Zhisis * * * Uife, that they 
may know Thee the only true God,’’ and he shows that they took it in 
such a sense as to make it mean that God the Word is not true, that 
is, not real God. He goes on to show that in denying that He is of 
one substance with the Father, and in making Him a created God, 
they must necessarily end in Polytheism and in Creature-Worship. 
I quote: 


‘Thereupon Arius and his followers leap up on account of the 
expression as though they had found something against the truth, 
because Christ said ‘the only true God.’ Thou seest therefore [they 
say] that the Father ἐς ‘the only true [God].’ But we ourselves also 
ask you, What then do ye say? Is the Father the only true [God]? 
What then will the Son be? Is not the Son true [God]? If the Son 
is not true God our faith is vain; the preaching among us is vain. 
Ye will be found to utter blasphemies to your own hurt by likening, 
the Son to nameless and nefarious idols, to which the prophets have 
spoken in the person of the deceived; when speaking, remembered 
that expression, and the expression, your fathers made false gods for 
themselves, and the hills became false (358). 


Is then even the Sole-Born so judged among you, and do ye 
think so disgracefully in regard to Him who redeemed you, since 
indeed (359) He did redeem you? But ye are no longer of His fold, 
for ye deny your Saviour and Redeemer. For if He is not real God, 
then He is not to ke bowed to: and if Heisa creature, He is not God. 
And if He is not to be bowed to why then is He called God? Cease 


eile OE ee eee 55 ΞΕ ΞΘ. 
(358). Jerem. iii., 23, Sept. 
(359). Or, ‘‘if indeed,” εἰ ye ἐξηγόρασε, 


242 Chapter 111 


ye to work out the Babylonian nature again (360), for ye have set up 
the likeness and the image of Nebuchadnezzar (361), (362), and have 
sounded that much talked of trumpet to gather the warriors, and 
with music and cymbals and stringed instrument ye have made the 
peoples to fall by means of your deceptive words, for ye have got 
them to serve an image rather than God and truth. And what other 
is real [God] as the Son of God is? For saith the Scripture, Who 
among the Sons of God shall be counted equal to the Lord (363)? And, 
No other shall be compared to Him’? (364), (365). 


Just below, Epiphanius says that the Son is the ¢ru¢h, and quotes 
His words in John xiv., 6, ‘‘l.am the ΤΥ ἢ." 


PASSAGE I6. 


St. Epiphanius on Heresy LXIX., Section 36, after arguing that a 
creature could not save us, and that we need a divine Redeemer, 
comes to notice the Arian absurdity that the Father had created a 
God and given Him to us to be worshipped: which he shows to be 
contrary to the Christian doctrine that 20 creature can be worshipped, 
but that αὐ religious bowing is prerogative to God. For he writes: 

‘‘Moreover how could God have created a God and given Him to 
us to bow to, when He saith, ‘ Thou shalt not make to thyself any like- 
ness of any thing on earth or in heaven, and Thou shalt not bow to it 


(360). Dindorf, on page 835 of Part I., of volume iii., of his edition of 
Epiphanius, approves the reading ¢ipou, mixture, instead of φύσιν, nature, 
above. With ipo, the translation would be, ‘‘ Cease ye to work up the Baby- 
lonian mixture again.”’ 

(361). Daniel iii., 1-30. 

(362). Epiphanius on Heresy LXIX., Section 31, (pages 176 and 177 of 
Part I., vol. iii., of Dindorf’s edition, Lipsiae, A. D. 1861), Εἴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθινὸς ὁ 
Υἱὸς, ματαία ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν μάταιον TO ἐν ἡμῖν κήρυγμα: εὑρεθήσεσθε ἀπεικάζοντες τὸν Ὑἱὸν 
βλασφημοῦντες καθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν, τοῖς ἀνωνύμοις καὶ ἀθεμίτοις εἰδώλοι. * * * Εἰ γὰρ οὐκ 
ἔστιν ἀληθινὸς [6] Θεὸς, οὔτε προσκυνητός ἐστι, καὶ εἰ ἔστι κτιστὸς, ov Θεός. Kai εἰ οὐκ ἔστι 
προσκυνητὸς, πῶς ἄρα θεολογεῖται; παύσεσθε οἱ πάλιν τὴν φύσιν ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν Βαβυλωνίαν, 
οἱ τὴν εἰκόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον ἐγείραντες τοῦ Ναβοχοδονόσορ, etc. 

The 6 which I have bracketed, Dindorf would omit. See page 177 of Part 
I., vol. iii., of his edition of Epiphanius. 

(363). Psalm lxxxviii., 6, Sept. 

(364). Baruch iii., 35. 

(365). Epiphanius’ Panarion, Heresy lxix., Section 31, (pages 176, 177 of 
Part I., vol. iii., of Dindorf’s edition). 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 243 


(366)? How therefore could God have created to Himself a Son and 
commanded that He should be bowed to, especially as an Apostle 
saith, ‘And they served the creature contrary to the Creator, and became 
fools’ (367. For itis a foolish thing to call a creature God, and to 
violate the first commandment which saith, Zhou shalt bow to the 
Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve (368). THEREFORE THE 
HOLY CHURCH OF GOD BOWS TO NO CREATURE, but does to the Son who 
has been born [out of the Father] 20 the Father in the Son, and to the Son 
in the Father, together with the Holy Ghost (369). 


PASSAGE 17. 


St. Epiphanius, writing on Heresy LXI1V., that of the Ovigenzsts, 
in Section 8, where he is reasoning against Origen, accuses him of deny- 
ing the Word and the Holy Ghost to be really God, and argues 
that if they be creatures they can not be bowed to, that is they can 
not be worshipped, and towards the end says, ‘‘ Vo created thing ts to 
be bowed to.”’ 

For speaking of Origen he writes: 

‘“We have found him in many places wickedly asserting that the 
Sole-Born God, and the Holy Ghost also are foreign to the Divinity 
and to the Substance of the Father; for example, by his calling Him 
a made God, it is clear that he [Origen] deems Him a creature. 


‘For though some wish to quibble against us and to assert that 
the expression made (γενητὸν) means the same as the term Jdornz 
(τῷ γεννητῷ), We can not admit that made, may be asserted of God, 
but only ofcreatures. For made is one thing and 4o7x is another. 
And so with reference to his assertion, that is, that God was made, let 
us first ask in what sort of ways that God was created who is honored 
by thee with that expression [ade]. And how is He to be bowed 
to if He was made? For take away the censure in the Holy Apostle 


(366). Exodus xx., 4, 5. 

(265) ἘΠῚ ἃ, 25, 25: ᾿ 

(368). Matt. iv., 10; Luke iv., 8. 

(369). Epiphanius, on Heresy LXIX., that of the Ariomantiacs, Section 36, 
(page 182 of Part I., Vol. III., of Dindorf’s edition): Mwpov yap τὸ κτίσιν θεολογεῖν, 
ἀθετεῖν δὲ πρώτην ἐντολὴν τὴν λέγουσαν, “Κύριον τὸν Θεόν cov προσκυνήσεις, καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ 
λατρεύσεις." Διὸ ἡ ἁγία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησία ov κτίσμα προσνυνεῖ, ἀλλὰ Ὑἱὸν γεννητὸν 
Πατέρα ἐν Ὑἱῷ, Υἱὸν ἐν Πατρὶ, σὺν ‘Ayiw Πνεύματι. 


241 Chapter LIL. 


on those who apply the term God to the creature (370), and give me 
besides a created and bowed—to God, and prove that to be in accord- 
ance with that pious faith which bows to no creature, but to the 
Creator, and the course of thy reason which hath strayed away from 
the piety of the Fathers will be fair and reasonable. But thou canst 
not show that. Andif thou hadst dared to plunder and to use vio- 
lence there, thou wouldst not have been able, by so doing, to pervert 
the fair reasoning power of pious men to favor such great baseness, 
O thou God-driven man. For understanding and reason fight against 
thee, for asI have said, 2o creature can be bowed to (371). And if 
a creature could be bowed to at all, forasmuch as there are many 
other creatures, there would then be no difference [as to their right 
to be worshipped] and we should be under obligation to bow to all 
things along with the One Creator, on the ground that all are fellow- 
servants [to God] and are of the same class and name”’ [that is all 
are creatures. |’’ (372). 


PASSAGE 18. 


The Anomoeans, that is the Uvnlkeists, as their name means, 
were the most radical of the Arian party. Some of the Arians were 
willing to grant that the Son is of like substance with the Father: but 
the Anomoeans denied that, and asserted that He is of alike sub- 
stance. And yet, with the rest of the Arians, they worshipped their 
created Christ, though they held that He is Unlike the Father as to 
Substance. Andso even they were creature-servers on their own 
confession. 

For St. Epiphanius, in Section 8, of his remarks on the Anomo- 
ean, that is the Eunomian Heresy, (Heresy LX XVI.,) shows that the 
Eunomians worshipped the Son of God as a made God. The passage 
is on page 374, volume 3, of Dindorf’s edition. I quote a part of it: 


“Dost thou bow then to the Son of God, or dost thou not bow? 
“‘Ves, saith he, I do bow to Him. 


““ Dost thou bow to God or not? 


(370)... (Hosea) xiv., 3, etc. 
(371). St. Epiphanius on Heresy LXIV., Section 8, (page 596 of Vol. I. of 
Dindorf’s edition). Πᾶν yap τὸ κτιστὸν ov προσκυνητὸν, ὡς For, 


(372). Id. 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 245 


‘“ Ves, saith he, I do bow to God (373). 


‘“What sort of a God then will that created God be who is called 
God by thee and bowed to by thee (374)? For if the God who is to 
be bowed to created that One, and was well pleased that He should 
be bowed to, and nevertheless that very God who created [Him] is not 
willing that any other creature should be bowed to, but blames those 
who bow to a creature, and teaches in the Law [of Moses], Zhou 
shalt not make to thyself any likeness and bow to it, be it of any thing 
in Heaven, or on the earth, or in the waters (375); and the apostle 
saith, They served the creature besides the Creator and became fools (376); 
how comes it then that he commands that no creation at all shall be 
bowed to? Is there then respect for persons with God (377)? God 
forbid! For in showing that the One God is to be bowed to, he has 
certainly shown that the one bowed to is other than the creation, and 
παῖ the creation bowed to is other than the Lord who is to be bowed 
to, [that is] the Son of God who was born out of the Father. For 
because He was born out of Him, He isa Son like Him, and of His 
Substance (378): and for that reason He is to be bowed to by all. 
Through Him [the Son] He [the Father] made all things, and without 
Him was nothing made [that was made] (379). For by Him and by 
His Holy Spirit, who hath come out of Him (380), and receiveth from 
the Son (381), He [the Father] made and settled all things. or dy 
the Word of the Lord the Heavens were settled and all their (382) power 


-(373). Epiphanius’ Panarion, Heresy LXXVIL., Section 8, Προσκυνεῖς τοίνυν 
τὸν Yiov τοῦ Θεοῦ, 7 οὐ προσκυνεῖς; vai, φησὶ, προσκυνῶ αὐτόν. Θεὸν προσκυνεῖς, ἢ οὐχί; 
ναὶ φησὶ, Θεὸν προσκυνῶ. 

(374). Greek, προσκυνοῦμενος, that is, of course worshipped, for bowing is the 
most common act of religious worship and stands for all of them often as here. 

(375). Exod. xx:, 2; 5- 

(376). +-Rom.:1.; 25; 

(377). Il. Sam. xiv., 14: Acts x., 34. 

(378). Greek, ὅμοιον αὐτῷ καὶ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν Yidv. Literally, ‘‘like Him and ac- 
cording to Him.” 

(379). John 1., 3. 

(380). John xv., 26. 

(381). John xvi., 14, I5. 

(382). Dindorf’s text has ‘“‘his,” αὐτοῦ; but on page 864, Volume IIL. of his: 
edition of Epiphanius he restores ‘‘there.’’ I follow his restoration. 


246 Chapter 111. 


by the Spirit (383) of His mouth (384). For when the Sole-Born, (as 
has been said by me above), said 7hat they may know thee the only 
true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent (385), He separated 
Himself from the creation, as the apostle also saith, Onze God of whom 
are all things, and we through Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, 
through whom are all things, and we through Him (386). And thou 
seest how he hath showed that there is' but one God the Father, and 
one Lord who was born out of Him (387): and he did not say, 7here 
zs one God, and one Lord in such a sense that all things else were born out 
of the Father, as the Son was (388), but One Lord through whom (389) 
are all things. And since He is [but] One Lord through whom are all 
things, He is riot one of all [created] things, but is Maker of all 
things, for He is the Creator of all created things.”’ 


Further on, on the same Heresy LXXVI., St Epiphanius con- 
trasts as follows the entire freedom of the Universal Church from the 
fundamental error of creature-worship. For he writes: 

‘And ΜῈ OURSELVES DO NOT WORSHIP ANYTHING INFERIOR TO 
THE SUBSTANCE OF GOD HIMSELF, BECAUSE WORSHIP IS TO BE GIVEN 
TO HIM ALONE WHO IS SUBJECT TO NO ONE, THAT IS TO THE UNBORN 
FATHER, AND TO THE SON WHO WAS BORN OUT OF HIM, AND TO THE 
HOLY GHOST, who has come from Him also through the Sole Born. 
For THERE IS NOTHING CREATED IN THE TRINITY. * * * Be- 
cause the Trinity is uncaused by any * * * cause, It has uner- 
ringly taught that Itself alone is to be worshipped: for Itself alone is 
uncaused :» whereas all things [else] have been caused. For they 
have been made and created, but the Father is uncreated, and has a 
Son who has been born out of Him, but is no creature, and a Holy 
Spirit who goes out of Him, and was not made. Since these things 
are so, the Son who is worshipped is not liable to the suffering of a 
creature’’ (390). 


(383). Or “breath,” τῷ πνεύματι. 
(384). Psalm xxxiii., 6. 

1385). John xvi1.; 3. 

(386).. I. Cor. viii., 6. 

(387). Greek, εξ αὐτοῦ. 


(388). Or, ‘Sand one Lord together with all the things made by Him.’’ 
(389). Greek, δὲ ov. 
(390). Col. 609-612, tome 42 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. 


: Account of the Six Ecumentcal Councils. 247 


Just before, on the same Heresy, Epiphanius censures the 
Eunomians, that is the Aetians, for worshipping that which is not 
divine in its substance (391). Epiphanius is gloriously Orthodox 
against all creature-service. But to quote all the passages from him 
against that sin would occupy more space than the limits of this work 
permit. On the Anomoeans, that is the Eunomiaus, for instance, 
he witnesses against it in Sections 8, 9. So he testifies further on, 
on the same Heresy, on pages 430, 431, 435, 436, 445, 447, and 448, 
in Volume III. of Dindorf’s edition. 

So he is especially valuable also as a witness, in his remarks on 
the Collyridian Heresy (Heresy LX XIX.) against the worship of the 
Virgin Mary, of which he had just heard: so late is it. 


PASSAGE 19. 


Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, was a valiant and noble 
champion for Christ against the creature-service of Arianism, which, 
in the passage below quoted, he calls ‘‘ Avian [dolatry;”’ and justly, 
because it made one whom it called a creature, God, and worshipped 
that creature. Because of his stand for the consubstantiality and co- 
eternity of God the Word with the Father, the Arian Emperor Con- 
stantius banished him during the period A. Ὁ. 355 to A. D. 361. 
He spent part of the time in Palestine, at Eleutheropolis, where he is 
thought to have written his Zwo Books for Saint Athanasius to the 
Eimperor Constantius. ‘They are praised by Athanasius. He wrote 
other works also for Orthodoxy (392). 


This Lucifer of Cagliaria in his work, ‘‘For Saint Athanasius, 
addressed to the Arian Emperor Constantius,’ tells him: 


‘‘And thou oughtest not to doubt that thy works are malign, 
but Athanasius’ just. For thou art a murderer, a destroyer of God’s 
religion, a denier of the only Son of God, an overthrower of the 
Apostolic faith, an establisher, of ARIAN IDOLATRY’’ (393). 


(391). Col. 608, id. 

(392). On Lucifer see Davies’ article ‘‘Luciferus 7.) in Smith and Wace’s 
Dichonary of Christian Biography. 

(393). Migne’s FPatrologia Latina, tom. 13, col. 905. Luciferi Episcopi 
Calaritani, Pro Sancto Athanasio, lib. 11., Nec debes dubitare opera tua esse 
maligna, Athanasii vero justa. Tu etenim es homicida, religionis Dei destructor, 
unici Filii Dei negator, apostolicae fidei expugnator, idololatriae Arianae funda- 
tor. 


248 Chapter 711. 


In the same work before, Lucifer with reference to the fact that 
Arianism brought in a created God in its Word, and so a new God 
besides the increate Jehovah, quotes against the Emperor, Deut v., 
7-11, which forbids to worship any such new God, and calls such 
creature-worship ‘‘7zdolatry.’’ For he asks him, ‘‘/s zt good to forsake 
God and to go after idolatry, or ts tt evil?’ (394). ‘To show further 
the grievousness of Constantius’ sin in spreading such creature-service, 
he quotes as apposite Deut. xvii., 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, which inflicts the 
punishment of stoning to death on every man and woman who brings 
in anew God, such as the Arians made their Word to be by pro- 
claiming that he was a creature, and hence not Jehovah. 


One thing about Lucifer however is censured by the ancient 
Orthodox, not his do¢trine against Constantius and Arianism, for St. 
Athanasius himself uses similarly strong and deserved language of 
both the Emperor and his heresy, but his too severe spirit against the 
penitent Arian when he reformed and returned to the Church and laid 
aside his denial of the Word’s consubstantiality and co-eternity with 
the Father, and renounced his creature-worship and his Polytheism. 
We should imitate God’s mercy in the Old Testament and in the 
New toward creature-servers when they repent and sincerely reform : 
but, like Him, and in loyal obedience to His Holy Word and to the 
Six Ecumenical Councils of His whole Church East and West, through 
which He has spoken against all creature-service, by His Spirit 
promised to the Universal Apostolate, we should denounce them and 
all other errorists till they repentand reform, warn them of the threats 
in His Word against all creature-servers, and of the instances of his 
righteous wrath visited on them in ancient times by the Assyrian and 
the Babylonian, and in later times by the Persian, the Saracen, the 
Tartar, and the Turk. For unless we witness for Him in such things 
God will require their blood at our hands (Ezek. iii., 18, 20: Ezek. 
XXxill., 6). As to every impenitent and irreformable creature-server 
and infidel, the Apostle Paul warns and commands, ‘‘But now 7 have 
written unto you not to keep company, tf any man that ts called a brother 
be * * * anidolater, with such aone no not to eat,’’ (1. Cor. v., 11). 


We should maintain that h7storic tradition of Scriptural truth, for 


(394). Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tome 13, col. 825 and the context; 
Luciferi Episcopi Calaritani, Pro Sancto Athanasio, lib. i. Bonum est dere- 
linquere Deum, et ire post idololatriam, an malum ? 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 249° 


it includes the Scriptures, not all then written, but penned since, a 
part of which is loyalty to the truth that God alone is to be invoked, 
and bowed to as acts of religious service (Matt. iv., 10); as to which 
Tradition the Holy Ghost by Paul saith in solemn language, ‘‘ Vow 
we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and 
not after the tradition which he received of us,’’ (11. Thess. iii., 6). ‘The 
tradition which he means is not the legendary tradition which contra- 
dicts Scripture, but the historically attested Transmission in doctrine, 
discipline, rite and custom of the Ante-Nicene Church which comes 
down from Christ and His Apostles. ‘The ignorant often confound 
them. But alas! in our day, how many disobey St. Paul’s injunction 
and dote on such perverters of souls into creature-service as John 
Henry Newman, and praise him after his death in that idolatry 
against which Holy Writ utters the warning of Galatians v., 19-22 
and Revelations xxi., 8. 


PASSAGE 20. 


Faustin, a Presbyter of Rome, who flourished in A. D. 369, and 
after, was a decided friend of St. Athananius and the Nicene Creed 
against the Arians, but was later a Luciferian, and so too uncharita- 
ble against the reforming and penitent Arian, who came back to the 
Church. He wrote a work on the 7) vinity, Which he addressed 
to Flaccilla, the wife of the Emperor Theodosius the Great. He: 
composed it at her request. It repays perusal. Among other things 
he shows that the Arians charged the Orthodox with having two- 
Gods because they believed in the Father and the Son, but he denied 
that inference; and, following Athanasius and the rest of the Ortho- 
dox, retorts the charge on themselves, because they had two separate 
Gods of unlikesubstance. I would add that Faustin shows that the 
Orthodox Trinity are of but one substance, and, I will add, that 
according to the teaching of Tertullian and the earlier Orthodox, the 
Father, His co-eternal Word and His co-eternal Spirit are three Parts 
of one whole Divinity, and that therefore the charge of having two or 
three entire Gods is a self-evident slander. Whereas according to 
Arius, the Father is the entire God without the Son or the Holy 
Ghost, each of whom is an entire being, separate from the other Two, 
so that the charge of Polytheism can not be denied by any Arian. 

Faustin, the Presbyter, brings out in Section X., of Chapter I., 


250 Chapter 7717. 


of his work oz the Trinity, the Arian weakness in making the Father 
and the Son to be of two different substances; one uncreated and the 
other a creature, as militating in effect, against any claim on their 
part to be Monotheists (395). 


In Section 9., referring to the statement of Christ in John x., 
30, Land the Father are one, he comes to accuse the Arians of Poly- 
theism, as follows: 


‘Arius having reference to the term ‘ave’ [in the plural], and 
understanding it to teach a plurality, introduced an impious plurality 
of Gods, and came to believe in one eternal God, and another who 
began to be God; one Almighty, and another who is not Almighty. 
But O the blindness,’’ etc. (396). 


PASSAGE 21. 


Further on, in Section 9., Chapter II., of the same work Ox the 
Trinity, Faustin again refers to the Arian heresy, as resulting in 
Polytheism and Creature-Worship, and brands it as destructive of 
the soul therefore. I quote: 


‘“For when he [Christ] said, or God so loved the world that He 
gave 715 Sole-Born Son, He goes on and says, 7hat whosoever be- 
lieveth in [fim should not perish, but have everlasting life’’ (397). 

“Again, I will say, He is the Sole-Born Son. [But] how can it be 
that zhosoever believeth in Flim does not perish, but shall have everlast- 
ing life, when to believe in a creature is an offence to the Divinity. 
Look at the Apostle Paul: consider what disgraceful things, what 
‘obscenities he reports of those, who, as he himself asserts, changed the 
truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served a creature rather 
than the Creator (398). If thou so believest, and so worshippest, and 
[50] servest the Sole-Born Son of God, though thou sayest that He is 
a creature, there await thee, O wretched man, those evils by which 


(395). Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tome 13, col. 44, 45. Faustini presbyteri 
De Trinitate, cap. x., SeCtion τ᾿ 

(396). Id., cap. xi., Section 1, Arius respiciens ad hoc quod ait, sass, in 
hoc sermone, pluralitatem intelligens, introduxit, impiam pluralitatem deorum, 
credens unum sempiternum Deum, et alium qui esse coeperit Deus; unum omni- 
potentem, et alium qui non sit omnipotens. Sed O caecacitas, etc. 


(397). John iii., 16. 
(398). Romans i., 25 and after. 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 251 


those are punished, who have changed the truth of God into a lie, and 
worshipped and served a creature rather than the Creator’’ (399). 


Then he takes up and refutes another Arian/assertion, namely 
that ‘‘ Christ ἐς an adopted Son of God, and not the real Son’’ (400). 


PASSAGE 22. 


Still farther on, in the same work Ox the Trinity, Chapter III., 
Section 2, Faustin, like Athanasius, makes bowing (religious bowing 
of course) prerogative to God, and the fact that it is given in Scrip- 
ture to Christ, to be a proof of His Divinity. He first quotes Isaiah 
xlv., 14, 15 and 16, which in his Latin reads (I translate), 

“Boypt is wearied; and the business of the Ethiopians, and the 
Sabeans, tall men, shall go over to Thee, and they shall be thy servants, 
and bound with fetters they shall follow after Thee, and shall bow to 
Thee, and by Thee shall they pray: for God ts tn Thee, and there ts no 
God beside Thee. For thou art God, and we knew it not, O God of 
Israel the Saviour. All who oppose Thee shall be ashamed and con- 
founded, and shall go to confusion.’’ 


Without any break he goes on to apply the passage to prove the 
perfect Divinity of the Eternal Word. For he says, 

‘Notice, that to the Son are uttered the words, ‘And they shall 
be thy servants, and bound with fetters, they shall follow after Thee, 
and shall bow to Thee, and by Thee shall they pray (401). And THE 
SON IS PROVEN TO BE VERY GOD BY THE FACT THAT HE IS BOWED 
TO. FOR IT BELONGS TO GOD TO BE BOWED TO: since indeed in an- _ 
other place, also an apostle teaches that concerning the Son of God it 


(399). Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tome 13, column 57: Faustini presbyteri 
De Trinitate, cap. ii., sect. ix., Iterum dicam, est unigenitus Filius: quomodo 
qui credit in eum, non perit, sed vitam habebit aeternam, cum credere in crea- 
turam sit Divinitatis offensio? Respice ad apostolum Paulum; considera, quae 
opprobria, quas obscenitates de his reterat, qui, ut ipse ait, commutarerunt 
veritatem Dei in mendacio, et coluerunt et servierunt creaturae potius quam 
Creatori (Rom. i., 25). Tu si sic credis, et sic colis, et servis unigenito Filio 
Dei, ut eum dicas esse creaturam, illa te mala miser exspectant quibus 1111 pun- 
iuntur, guz commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacio, et coluerunt et servierunt 
creaturae potius quam Creatort. 


(400). Ibid. 
(401). Isaiah xlv., 14. Faustin’s Latin of that verse differs a little from 
Jerome’s Vulgate, which was not made till later. 


252 Chapter IIT. 


is written, Azd let all the angels of God bow to Him (402); that is 
because He is really God and Lord”’ (403). 


Then Faustin takes up the words ‘‘God zs in Thee, and there ts 
no God beside Thee. For thou art God and we knew τέ not, Oh God 
of Israel the Saviour; and says: 


‘Therefore since God zs in God, and there is no God besides Him 
in whom God zs, and He Himself is God, the Saviour of Israel, there 
is shown [thereby] the oneness of the Divinity in the Father and in 
the Son, as also the oneness of their almightiness, and in general 
terms of whatsoever belongs to the divine Substance’’ (404). 


But we will quote no more of Faustin, but limit ourselves mainly 
to those passages which speak of Arianism as Polytheism and Crea- 
ture-Service, for that is the topic of this section. 


The Arians opposed the do¢trine of the primitive Christian 
Writers, St. Justin the Martyr, St. Theophilus of Antioch and others 
that God the Word had been from all eternity in the Father, asa 
consubstantial Part of Jehovah, but was born out of His mouth just 
before the worlds were made and to make them and they were vulgar 
and low enough and blasphemous enough to pervert it and to lug in 
mere human analogies which it rejects. A very ancient Fragment 
of an Arian Writing, which is found on columns 593 and after of 
tome 13, of Migne’s Patrologia Latina, perverts and blasphemes the 
Orthodox do¢trine as follows: the heretic is replying evidently to the 
reproach that the Arians are Ditheists, that is Zwo-Gods-ztes; and 15, 
stung and angered by it: for he says: 

‘Tf God has a Son, He must have a wife also, or surely He is. 
feminine, and has conceived and brought forth a Son by another Per-. 
son. See! you say therefore that there is more than one God. Why 
[then] do ye insult us, because we assert that there are gods?”’ (405). 


(402). Heb. 1... 6: 

(403). Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tome 13, col. 64, Faustini Presbyteri De 
Trinitate, cap. iii., sect. ii.: Intende quia ad Filium dicitur £¢ tut erunt servi, 
et post te sequentur alligati vinculis, et adorabunt te, et in te deprecabuntur (9). 
Ergo et hine Deus verus ostenditur Filius, cum adoratur. Dei enim est adorari: 
Siquidem et alibi docet Apostolus de Filio Dei esse scriptum;, ᾿ξ adorent eum. 
omnes angeli Dei (Heb. i., 6); scilicet quia vere Deum et Dominum. 

(404). Ibid. 

(405). Sermonum Arianorum Fragmenta Antiquissima, * * * Frag- 
mentum Primum, col. 594, 595 of tome 13 of Migne’s Patrologia Latina: Necesse, 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Frerestes. 253 


There must have been much of such Arian stuff. For Hilary’s 
Book Against Constantius, page 7, states that ‘‘ All the writings of the 
Churches, and all the books are filled with the most impious blasphemies of 
the Arians,’ (406). Some of them are still found, at least in palimp- 
sests (407). 

St. Chromatius, the friend of Jerome, and Bishop of Aquileia in 
Italy in the last years of the fourth century and the beginning of the 
fifth, in his 7raétates on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Traétate Second, 
referring to the Father’s words in Matthew iii., 17, This is my beloved 
Son, incidentally condemns the Arian service of a created Christ as 
follows: for he says on those words of God the Father: 


“His Son certainly, not by adoption and grace, nor by creature- 
religion (408) as the heretics wish to have it, but by the property of His 
kind and in the verity of His Nature’’ (409). 


Seétion 9, Spread of Creature-Service the result of Arian teaching. 


I have seen no proof that any Arian worshipped angels or saints. 
On such matters they seem not to have swerved far from the doctrine 
of that Universal Church which they forsook. 


Yet as during their long control of all of it by violence, and 
tyranny during part of the reign of Constantius, and of the Eastern 
part during the reign of Valens, they expelled or imprisoned or killed 
all the sound bishops and clergy, and taught the people that creature- 
worship, as applied to their created Christ, is right, they blunted the 
moral sense on that point of many, and prepared the way for those 
who would teach the invocation of saints and of angels, and the wor- 
ship of relics by kissing (Hosea xiii., 1-4). At any rate we find no 
creature-worship in the church before the Arian Controversy. 


There is no creature-invocation in any genuine Ante-Nicene 
Christian writing, nor in any genuine writing of Athanasius, or in any 


si Filium habet Deus, et uxorem habet, aut certe femineus est, et aliunde con- 
cepit et genuit Filium. Ecce vos dicitis jam plures deos; quomodo nos insultatis, 
quod deos dicimus esse? 

(406). Quoted in note ‘“‘a,”’ col. 593, id. 

(407). Ibid. 

(408). Or “ὃν the worship of a creature.” 

(409). Col 331, tome xx., of Migne’s Patrologia Latina, Hic est Filius 
‘meus. Suus utique, non per adoptionem gratiae, neque per religionem creaturae, 
ut haeretici volunt, sed sui proprietate Generis et veritate Naturae. 


254 Chapter 77. 


Orthodox writing of St. Athanasius’, life-time. On the contrary’, all 
the primitive writings which touch on creature-worship of any kind. 
condemn it. The martyrs died to oppose it and to witness to the 
fundamental doctrine of Christ’s saving Gospel, that all acts of relig- 
lous service are prerogative to Almighty God. Yet creature-service 
in the form of prayer and bowing to the mere Arian created Christ 
was preached in the reigns of Constantius and Valens, in the Chris- 
tian Church by the Arians who had, by the aid of the persecuting 
civil power, driven out the Orthodox pastors and usurped their places. 


It is true, as we see from a passage of Epiphanius on the Ano- 
mean heresy (Heresy LX XIV.), quoted above, that even that radical 
Arian sect seem to have refused worship to any other creature than 
their created Christ; for the old Scriptural spirit of the primitive 
Church against all creature-service still survived to some extent even in 
their perverted minds, and still more in the minds of the people, upon 
whom they had forced themselves: so that to preach the invocation 
of the Virgin Mary, or of angels, would have made trouble for them 
among the sound people, who were compelled by the terrors of the 
stern power and tyranny of Constantius and of Valens to endure 
them. Hence wisdom and prudence would keep them from invoking 
angels or saints. Yet their evil course in sanctioning and teaching 
the principle that creature-worship, if given to their created Christ, is 
lawful and right, would naturally be carried out to its logical results 
by the more depraved and lead in their minds to the worship of the 
Virgin Mary and angels. Indeed not only Epiphanius as above, but 
Athanasius also had predicted that their creature-worship would not 
end with worshipping their created Christ, but would extend itself to 
other creatures. I have given the quotation from Athanasius above. 


Even John Henry Newman in a note to page 3 of his Translation 
of S. Athanasius’ Treatises Against Arianism, justly spoke of the 
Arian denial of Christ’s divinity and the creature-worship consequent 
on that denial, asa ‘‘dringing back idolatry and its attendant spiritual 
zgnorance,’’ and refers to ‘‘the tdolatrous character of Arian worship 
on tts own showing, viz., as worshipping One whom they yet maintained 
to be a creature.’ T,ater on, Mohammed, the Arab impostor, adopted 
and propagated with the sword the Arian denial of the Divinity of 
the Eternal Word. Ina work by some old author, Against Mohammed, 
we find the statement: 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies. 255 
a ns 


‘“He drew the doctrine of but one God from the Hebrews; and 
the doctrine that the Word and the Spirit are creatures from the 
Arians; and the worship of a man from the Nestorians. And he com- 
posed for himself a religion made up from them all’’ (410). 


The corruptions and creature-worship and image-worship which 
had entered the Church brought God’s curse upon it, but since the 
Reformation the deluge of Arab and Tartar and Turkish conquest has 
been receding, and let us hope, will soon utterly subside; and the 
Faith of Nicaea will again control all it ever had. It will if the 
Christians under the Mohammedan sway will only reform. 


Happily the Church Universal is perfectly clear from all stain of 
creature-service. The invocation of angels is condemned by Canon 
XXXV. of the local Council of Laodicea about A. Ὁ. 364, when it 
first appears, and that canon was invested with Ecumenical Sanction 
by Canon I. of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod. Of course by equality 
of reasoning (pari ratione) all other creature-invocation is forbidden 
by that enactment. For it is all creature-service contrary to Christ’s 
own saving lawin Matthew iv., 10, Zhou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, 
and Him only shalt thou serve. 


St. Epiphanius, in the last half of the fourth century, in his ac- 
count of the Heresy of the Collyridians, shows that the worship of 
the Virgin Mary was then a novel thing and was regarded by all 
Orthodox men as silly and sinful. 


And the Third Ecumenical Council by approving St. Cyril of 
Alexandria’s Anathema VIII., which condemns the Nestorian way of 
service to the human nature of Christ by itself and the IXth Anathema 
of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod which condemns the same error, 
in effect, forbid a fortior?, that is much more all creature-service. 
For surely if I may not worship by itself the highest of all mere 
created things, that is Christ’s humanity, much less may I worship 
the Virgin Mary, or any other saint or angel. 


(410). Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 104, col. 1447, 1448 and 1449, 
Contra Muhammed. 


256 Chapter IV. 


2 ταν πα πα 


Νά De3Z5: 


THE FIRST ECUMENICAL. COUN Cre 


INTRODUCTORY MATTER. 


CHAPTER IV. 


THE SYNOD ITSELF. 
1. Events just before it. 
2. When did τέ meet ? 
. In what building did it meet ? 
. Number of Bishops present. 
Whence they came. 
. The disputations at Nicaea before the Synod met. 
Who presided ? 
. The Aéts, thatis Minutes of the First Synod. 
. On what topics Nicaea decided. 


oO oOmtr nn ff Ww 


10. Why should not the gathering of the Apostles at Jerusalem, 
which acquitted Peter, as told in Aéts xt., be deemed the 
First Ecumenical Synod, and that which vindicated the 
claim of Gentile Christians to be free from the Mosaic Law, 
be deemed the Second, tn which case Nicaea would be reckonea 
the Third? 


1. Events between Arius’ expulsion from the Church in A. D. 
320, or 321, and the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, A. D. 325. 


Arius, after attempting to excite his followers and the populace, 
and the civil authorities, many of whom were pagans, against his 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: The Council Ltself. 257 


Bishop, Alexander (411), and after his consequent expulsion from 
Alexandria, went, as we have seen, to Palestine, where he found 
some friends, chief among whom was Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, 
the noted Church Historian, who sympathized with his heresy. But 
here the diligent pursuit of Bishop Alexander followed him, as was 
right and just, for Arius was actively engaged in corrupting the faith, 
and in ruining souls. ‘Thence he went to his strongest partisan, 
Eusebius of Nicomedia, after whom the whole heretical party are 
often called Zusebians by St. Athanasius. There Eusebius and his 
partisans issued an Encyclical addressed to all Bishops, asking them 
to admit the Arians to communion, though they had justly been 
excommunicated. The response, judging from what occurred soon 
after at Nicaea, could not have been much. One thing however at 
this time helped Arianism. It was the disorder into which matters 
had fallen in the war between Constantine and the Emperor 
Licinius, which began in A. D. 322, and ended in A. D. 323, with 
the victory of Constantine. Egypt and Asia belonged before the 
war to Licinius, the champion of paganism, and during the turmoil 
when he persecuted the Orthodox Bishops, Arius was permitted to 
return to Alexandria. Constantine on becoming Master of the whole 
empire undertook to reconcile the Orthodox and their opponents by 
condemning both Alexander and Arius, and by representing the 
questions involved as of no importance, a thing which displayed his 
own ignorance of their tremendous import. The contents of the letter 
which was sent from Nicomedia show the hand of the Arian Bishop 
of that see, and his influence on Constantine, who, by the way, had 
not yet been baptized. It was sent to Alexandria by the venerable 
Bishop Hosius, of Cordova, the one Orthodox Bishop who seems to 
have had most influence over the Emperor’s mind, with whom it is 
thought he may have become acquainted when he held Spain in his 
jurisdiction after the death of his imperial father. Hosius, of course, 
could not make oil and water mix, for the Orthodox were righteously 
firm and the Arians were obstinate, and so he returned to the Emperor. 
According to Sulipicius Severus, it was held that Hosius was the 
cause of the holding of the Synod (412). For he seems to have 


(411). See Hefele I., 248, Clark’s translation, Edinburgh, and the authori- 
ties there cited. 

(412). Sulpit. Sever. 7152. ii., 55. He writes, as quoted in Hefele I., 261, 
Nicaena Synodus, auctore illo (Hosio) confecta habebatur. 


258 Chapter IV. 


advised the Emperor to summon the Bishops of the Christian world 
to meet there. Constantine, as Rufinus states, acted in the matter in 
accordance with the advice of the Bishops (413). ‘That advice was 
given by Westerns like Hosius for instance, and by Oriental prelates 
also. Some have thought that the Bishop of Rome, Sylvester, was 
not consulted, while Hefele argues that he was. To prove that he 
was, is no, argument for any alleged supremacy of Rome, as distin- 
guished from her primacy, for the letter of convocation was sent by the 
Emperor everywhere. And in an Ecumenical Synod every see had 
a right to be heard. Constantine put the public conveyances at the 
disposal of the Bishops to help them on their way, and provided a 
daily maintenance for them. 


2. When did it meet ? 

On May 20, 325, according to Socrates (414), the Council met, 
and on June 19 put forth its Creed (415). 

3. In what building did it meet? 

On this matter there has been some doubt among some, as we 
see in Hefele’s note 7, page 279, volumei., of the English translaticn of 
his History of the Christian Councils. Eusebius in his Life of Con- 
stantine, III., 10, statesthat it was ‘‘22 the most central house of the 
imperial palace buildings.’ 'Theodoret in his Ecclesiastical History, 
Book I., Chapter 7, as in Bohn’s translation, describes it as follows: 

‘When they [the bishops] were all assembled, the Emperor 
ordered a large apartment to be prepared for their accommodation in 
the palace, in which a sufficient number of seats were placed: and 
here the bishops were summoned to hold their deliberations upon the 
proposed subjects. The Emperor, attended by a few followers, was 
the last to enter the room.”’ ἢ 


Sozomen in his Lcclestastical History, Book I., Chapter 19, 
speaks of the bishops having summoned Arius before them, and of 
their examining his doctrine and of their withholding their decision, 
and all this before the day of their meeting with the Emperor, from all 


(413) eRufinus! 2752. cel, leeks 

(414). Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter XIII, at the end; 
Act. IL, of Chalcedon in Harduin. Concil. 11., 286: Mansi vi., 955. 

(415). Mansi VL, 955: Hard. II, 286. See on those matters Hefele’s 
History of the Church Councils, Clark’s English translation, Vol. 1., page 274 
and after. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: The Council Itself. 259 


which it appears that the final decision on the faith was done in one 
day. Eusebius in Chapter 10, Book III., of his Le of Constantine, 
implies the same. And a note on page 122 of Bagster’s English 
translation of that work, well infers from Eusebius’ statement in that 
Chapter: 


““Hence it seems probable that this was the last day of the 
Council; the entire session of which occupied more than two months, 
and which was originally held in a Church.’’ The Synodal Epistle 
speaks of the matters being settled in the presence of the Emperor, 
which implies that they must have been settled on the day the 
Emperor met them, and he met them in session, so far as appears, on 
that day only. That they met before in a Church seems clear from 
Eusebius of Caesarea’s statement in Chapter 7 of Book III., of his 
Life of Constantine, where he speaks of their assembling before in a 
house of prayer. 


4. Number of Bishops who were present at the Council of Nicaea. 


This, according to Athanasius himself, was three hundred and 
eighteen (416). 


5. Whence they came. 


From the whole Roman Empire, though as the Council was held 
in the East, most present were Orientals. Yet Eusebius, of Caesarea, 
states in his Life of Constantine, Book III., Chapter 6, that the Em- 
peror assembled an Ecumenical Synod (σύνοδον οἰχουμενιχήν) that is a 
Synod of the whole ‘‘zzhadbczted world.’ Eusebius in the same place 
states, that by ‘‘anx honoring Jetter,’’ Constantine besought the 
Bishops of every quarter, (ἀπανταχόνεν), to assemble speedily at Nicaea. 
Recognizing their supreme right to rule in the spirituals, he referred 
the whole question to them. According to Rufinus’ Zvclestastical 
ffistory, Book I., Chapter 1, (or by another reckoning, Book X., 
Chapter 1), the Emperor asked Arius tocome. Of the Westerns, there 
were present only Hosius of Cordova in Spain; Caecilian, Metropolitan 
of Carthage, or, as we would now say, antocephalous Patriarch of all 
Latin Africa; Marcus of Calabria in Italy; Nicasius of Dijon in Gaul; 
Domnus of Stridon (in Pannonia); the two Roman Presbyters, Vitus 
and Vincent, representatives of Sylvester, Bishop of Rome. The 


(416). Hefele, in his Wistory of the Christian Councils, English translation, 
Vol. I., page 270 and after, has gone into detail on that matter. See there. 


260 Chapter IV. 


Orient, including its Apostolic sees, was more fully represented, for we 
find the names of Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, 
and Macarius of Jerusalem, and a host of other sound Bishops; and 
with them the great patrons and defenders of Arius and his heresies, 
Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea. T'wo Bishops 
came from outside the limits of the Roman Empire, one a Persian, 
the other a Goth. 

But as yet the lands of northern Europe lay in the darkness of 
paganism, and therefore we find no Anglo Saxon, no Hollander, no 
Dane, Norwegian, Swede, Finlander, German, Polander, Bohemian, 
or Russian among them. A still greater glory awaits their prelates 
in a seventh Ecumenical Council of the future which shall purge 
away all idolatry and all creature-service, and all infidelity and reunite 
in unsullied and perfect Orthodoxy, all who claim to be Christians. 

he strong arms of the Teutonic converts to the faith did their part 
nobly in the great battle near Tours, in turning back the desolating 
hordes of Moors and Arabs in the eighth century, who threatened 
to subjugate all Christendom. John Sobeiski and his Poles succored 
Vienna in its dire extremity in 1683, and saved Christendom again; 
and the Russian who at the time of the Council of Nicaea was a 
barbarian and a pagan, has stood as the champion of Eastern Chris- 
tianity for centuries past, has waged successful war for it, and seems 
destined, if he reforms, to win back all it has lost by the destroying 
sword and torch of the cruel Arab and Turk. 


6. The Disputations at Nicaea before the Synod met. 

Arius was there, and no less than seventeen bishops, led by 
Eusebius of Nicomedia, were among his partisans. 

On the side of the Orthodox were many champions for Christ 
against the creature-servers, but pre-eminent among them all was 
Athanasius, zmortal in name and immortal in fame, the Bishop who 
stands greatest among all prelates since the Apostles, though he was 
then only a deacon. Sozomen as in Bohn’s translation writes: 

‘“Many of the bishops and of the inferior clergy attracted the 
notice of the Emperor and the Court by these disputations. Athan- 
asius, who was then a deacon of Alexandria, and had accompanied 
the Bishop Alexander, greatly distinguished himself at this juncture”’ 
(417). Gregory of Nazianzus bears similar testimony to Athanasius’ 
merits. 


(417). Sozomen’s Accl. Hist. 1., 17. 


Wieaea, A. D325: The Council Tiself. 261 


‘“Theodoret,’’ writes Hefele, ‘‘ praises Athanasius equally, who, 
he says, ‘won the approbation of all the Orthodox at the Council of 
Nicaea, by his defence of apostolic doctrine, and drew upon himself the 
hatred of the enemies of the truth’’’ (Theodoret’s Eccl. Hist. I., 26). 
‘‘Rufinus says, ‘By hAzs controversial’ ability (suggestiones) [literally 
‘ suggestions’| he discovered the subterfuges and sophisms of the 
heretics (dolos ac fallacias)’’’ (418). We can easily see that chief among 
those suggestions, that is zzferences suggested by him from the Arian 
denial of Christ’s divinity, were the two necessary and inseparable 
ones of Polytheism and Creature-Worship, on which he insists in the 
passages quoted above, and elsewhere, as the unavoidable outcome 
of that denial. 

7. Who presided 3 

Hefele, in Section 5 of the first volume of his History of the 
Christian Councils, page 27 and after, of Clark’s translation, treats 
of ‘* The Presidency of Councils,’’ and shows that a certain supervision 
of their proceedings, not in the way of voting but by suggestion, en- 
treaty, and by preserving order, was sometimes wielded by the 
imperial power: while the whole decision on dogmas, discipline and 
rites rested with the bishops alone: both which positions are easily 
proven, though when the mere lay power of the Emperors became 
bossy and attempted to control the Bishops in the just -exercise of 
their prerogatives, they rejected it where they were free to do so, as 
for instance St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Bishops of the Third 
Ecumenical Council rejected the attempt of the Emperor Theodosius 
II. by his representative, Count Candidian, to control the Synod’s 
action against the heresiarch Nestorius. 


Hefele goes on in a cunning and insinuating way to argue that 
the Bishop of Rome presided in the Ecumenical Synods by his legates. 
In that he fails, for to prove that his representative signs first simply 
proves that the Orientals admitted the Bishop of Rome to be Bishop 
of the first see of the then Christian world; but it does not prove that 
he was what we now understand by a President of a deliberative 
assembly: for, as has been said, and as is proven by the Acts of those 
Councils themselves, and as even Hefele shows, much of what in our 
day would be styled mere chairmanship duties, was performed by the 
mere lay power, though such a thing as lay power over Bishops is 


ae (418). Hefele, I., 278, Clark’s translation. 


962 Chapter IV. 


not mentioned in the New Testament, and is not at all necessary but 
novel and unauthorized, and was even rejected by the Third Council 
when it interfered with the Bishops in the performance of their duties. 


Hefele finds that sc:ne Roman Bishop is spoken of as fraesidens, 
that is foresttting in other Ecumenical Councils (419), or that Hosius is 
mentioned as having bcen a leader (ἡγήσατο) in Councils (420), and he 
immediately jumps to the conclusion that he was the only foresztter 
and the only leader, and in brief the Chatrman or President of the 
Council. ; 

But in the Six Ecumenical Synods no one man had the sole 
power of putting motions, etc., after the model of our modern Chair- 
manuship or Presidentship system. Indeed, the facts prove just the 
very opposite, and show that he was only ‘‘ First among his equals” 
(primus inter pares) For no representative of the Bishop of Rome 
was at the Second Ecumenical Council; and at the Fourth the attempt 
of his legates to hinder the adoption of the twenty-eighth Canon of 
Chalcedon did not prevent the Orientals from passing it right in 
their teeth, and the Fifth Ecumenical Council treated Pope Vigilius 
as a wayward brother who was subject to it, and not at all as its 
President, and went on without him and finally made him submit to 
its decisions. 

As to Nicaea, but little or nothing is said definitely as to who 
presided in the Disputations between the first meeting of the Council 
on May 20th, 325, and the formal session of June 19, of the same year 
which adopted the Creed and condemned Arianism. Though two 
Roman presbyters, Vitus and Vincent, were present to represent Rome, 
yet no one is mentioned as presiding in them or any of them as a 
legate of Rome. Nor in the formal session of June 19, is there 
any mention of any exclusive Presidentship of Hosius or of any 
other, though it is definitely stated that the Emperor Constantine, 
after a modest Oration to them in which he counselled unity, ‘‘azded 
over the matter to the Foresitters’’ (421), that is to the occupants of the 
chief sees. If Hosius were a representative of Rome as Hefele contends, 


(419). Hefele’s History of the Church Councils, Clark’s translation, pages 
31, 32. 

(420). Id., page 39. 

(421). Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, Book III., Chapter XIIL, παρεδίδου 


τὸν λόγον τοῖς τῆς συνόδου προξδροις. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: The Council Itself, 263 


he, Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and Eustathius, Bishop of 
Antioch, would be among them, and certainly they were among the 
Foresitters that is Presidents (τοῖς zpogdpors) as Hefele on pages 35, 
36, of his Volume I., admits. 


There seems to have been a tendency in all the Ecumenical 
Synods to imitate the form of procedure in Acts xv., where each 
Apostle had the right to speak, though some are more prominent 
than others, where singularly enough no one is termed President. 
Yet there are leaders in them all, and Rome’s representatives, while 
they could not of themselves decide any question, and while they 
could cast but one vote, that of the Bishop of Rome, nevertheless 
stood and voted first, but every Bishop could speak and cast one vote 
also, whether his see was great or small. So Peter spoke first in the 
Council of Jerusalem in Acts xv., but his mere opinion given in that 
address of his did not settle matters, but the Synod went on to hear 
“the apostles Barnabas and Paul,” and finally James suggests the 
form that the decision should take, and then the apostles adopted his 
suggestion and the thing was settled. In all this Peter had only one 
voice and one individual vote. He is simply First among his equals. 
That is the type of things in the Six Ecumenical Councils. Peter's 
successor votes first and signs first, but every Bishop votes and signs 
independenly after him, and the majority of votes decides every ques- 
tion. Peter had no power to decide any question separate from the 
rest of the Apostles. He had a Primacy among them, not a Suprem- 
acy over them. ‘The power of binding and loosing was given to all 
(Matt. xviii., 15-21: John xx., 21-24). So was the power of teach- 
ing (Matt. xxviii., 16-20). And those powers are exercised by the 
Universal Apostolate in Ecumenical Synods. No valid and sound 
bishop may be deprived of them. Nor is he dependent on 
what the bishop of Peter’s Roman see may think or say as to their 
exercise. On the contrary, the Universal Apostolate can judge and 
condemn any bishop of Rome. As ἃ matter of fact, the Fifth Ecu- 
menical Council censured Vigilius, and the Sixth condemned Pope 
Honorius as a heretic. Moreover, the creature-invoker and image- 
worshipper, Leo XIII., is not a valid successor of Peter; for the 
Orientals, comprising all the rest of the Apostolic sees, justly brand 
him as a heretic condemned by the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, 
and deny the validity of his baptism and his orders, and the Angli- 


264 Chapter IV. 


a τ δ ΘΠ τ ν ἘΞ ΞΕ ΘΙ 99 5.9. 595555555.. 555 ππ- 


can communion, in its formularies, justly condemns him as an idolater 
and a heretic. And he is condemned as 411 idolater, a creature-server 
and a heretic, by the decisions of the Six Ecumenical Synods. So that 
one of the first things to be done in a future Seventh Ecumenical 
Council is to put a sound and valid successor to Peter in his place. 

We have seen that there is no proof of any exclusive Presidency 
of Peter's Romam see in the first meeting of the Council on May 20; 
nor is there any in the period between that day and the formal open- 
ing of the Council on June 19. How was it then? Let us see. 


There was on the 20th of May a meeting of the Bishops in @ 
house of prayer, as we see above. From that day on till June 19, 
when the Emperor opened the Council formally, there were repeated 
discussions between the Orthodox and their opponents, and it soon 
became clear that the great majority of the Bishops were on the sound 
side, and a small number on the side of Arius. Arius himself was 
examined again and again and his heresy was made fully manifest to 
all. Yet no definite sentence was passed, for the Council still awaited 
the coming of the Emperor. Finally after his arrival, he arranged a 
large room zz the most central house of the palace buildings, and 
invited the Bishops to enter it (422). That was seemingly on the 
19th of June, thirty days after the gathering of the Synod in the 
house of prayer of which Eusebius speaks, on May 20. The roth of 
June seems to be sure for the date of the Creed, for Hefele has adduced 
two authorities for that view; they are: 

(A). That date is on the copy of the Nicene Creed which was 
read by Bishop Eunomius of Nicomedia in the second session of the 
Fourth Ecumenical Council, A. D. 451. 

(B). Itis also in the Alexandrian Chronicle ( 423). 


On that day the whole work of the Synod on the Creed and 
Easter and perhaps also that on the Meletians seems to have been 
done. I judge so from the following: 

(A). From the statement of the Synodal Epistle it is clear that 
all the matters regarding Arius and his heresies and the promulgation 
of the Creed were done zz the presence of the Emperor: and it does not 
appear that Constantine met them in session except on that day, June 


(422). See Hefele, I., page 274, for the original authority. 
(423). Ibid, 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: The Council Itself. 265 


19, 325, though he gave them a banquet after the conclusion of the 
Council of which Eusebius writes in Chapter XV., of Book III., of 
his Life of Constantine. ‘That banquet was at the celebration of Con- 
stantine’s Vicennalia in July, but the day is not given. And there 
was quite an interval between June το and it. 


(B). Constantine in his Epistle to the Churches on the Council 
of Nicaea in Eusebius’ Lz/e of Constantine, Book III., Chapter XVII., 
ete., and Eusebius of Caesarea in Book III., Chapter X., and after, 
mention no more than one session of the Council, at which seem- 
ingly not only the Creed but the Pask matter also was settled. Com- 
pare Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, Book III., Chapters X. to XV., 
and Chapter XVIII. 


Eusebius in those places tells how, directly after the Emperor’s 
speech in opening the Council on June το, and his exhortation to the 
Bishops to unity, the Emperor ‘‘ gave permission to those who presided 
in the Council to deliver their opinions. On this some began to 
accuse their neighbors, who defended themselves, and recriminated in 
their turn. In this manner numberless assertions were put forth by 
each party, and a violent controversy arose at the very commence- 
ment.’’ ‘That is, this Arian shows that the Orthodox accused the 
Arians, who retorted. 


‘‘Notwithstanding this, the Emperor gave patient audience to 
all alike, and received every proposition with steadfast attention, and 
by occasionally assisting the argument of each party in turn, he 
gradually disposed even the most vehement disputants to a reconcilia- 
tion. Atthe same time, by the affability of his address to all, and 
his use of the Greek language (with which he was not altogether un- 
acquainted), he appeared in a truly attractive and amiable light, per- 
suading some, convincing others by his reasonings, praising those 
who spoke well, and urging all to unity of sentiment, until at last he 
succeeded in bringing them to one mind and judgment respecting 
every disputed question. 


CHAPTER XIV. 


Unanimous Declaration of the Council Concerning Faith, and the 
Celebration of Easter. 

‘The result was that they were not only united as concerning the 

faith, but that the time for the celebration of the salutary feast of 

Easter was agreed on by all. Those points also which were sanctioned 


266 Chapter IV. 


by the resolution of the whole body were committed to writing, and 
received the signature of each several member: and then the Emperor, 
kelieving that he had thus obtained a second victory over the adver- 
sary of the Church, proceeded to solemnize a triumphal festival in 
honour of God. 

CHAPTER XV. 
Constantine Entertains the Bishops on the Occasion of his Vicennalia. 


‘‘ About this time he completed the twentieth year of his reign.’’ 


All this which I have quoted from Bagster’s translation implies 
that the Emperor acted like a Reconciler, though not exa¢tly like 
our modern Presidents, though still an unbaptized man. ‘The cir- 
cumstances were peculiar. The influence of Hosius seems to have 
led the Emperor to favor the Orthodox faith and to plead with the 
Arians for it. In all the accounts of the proceedings at Nicaea in 
Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, and in the Histories of Socrates and 
Sozomen, and in Athanasius there is proof of his influence. There 
is no proof that the two Roman priests, Vito (Vitus) and Vincentius, 
ever acted as Presidents of the Council. ‘The fact is the form of man- 
agement of business at Nicaea and at Ephesus as we shall see was 
different from our modern system; for they discussed the matter and 
practically settled the chief points before the Council met, so that at 
Fphesus and at Nicaea a single day sufficed to settle the chief matters. 
The Bishops of the chief sees had the lead and seem to have arranged 
the business. So Constantine, as Eusebius writes, after his speech to 
the Bishops and his arguments for unity ‘‘furned the matter over to 
the Foresitters,’’ that is to the Presiding Prelates, who then managed 
matters: and when they could not convince the heretically inclined 
small minority, he helped them by his exhortations. The language of 
Constantine’s speech was in Latin, and it had to be translated to be 
understood. It is not likely that either of the two Roman Presbyters 
would be allowed to preside over Bishops; nor is it clear that they 
knew Greek well enough to do so. The Roman legates were em- 
powered to represent the views and beliefs and interests of their 
Bishop; but the management of the business of the Council of Nicaea 
and that of Ephesus was in the hands of the Prelates of the chief sees, 
one of whom who understood Greek well taking the lead generally. 

If Hosius, as Hefele contends, was empowered to represent Rome, 
though he was a Spaniard, and not a Roman, and so not of Rome’s 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: The Council Itself. 267 


jurisdiction, he was only first among his equals and had only one 
vote for Rome. Butscholars are divided as to whether he represented 
Rome or not. We may speak more on that point elsewhere. But 
we shall see from the Acts of the Councils that the Bishop of Rome 
had no supremacy in them. 


8. The Adts of the First Synod of the Christian World, A. D. 
325, which was held at Nicaea. 


No copy of the Acts of the First Ecumenical Council has 
reached us. 


Athanasius when consulted as to the transactions at Nicaea, does 
not refer to any Acts as existing, but gives an account of them him- 
self in his work ox the Nicene Definition. See it, Section 2, page 4, of 
the Oxford translation in 5. Athanasius’ 7yeatises Against Arianism. 

Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century, makes 
no mention in his 4zbliotheca of any Book of the Adis of the First 
Ecumenical Council, except that of Gelasius of Cyzicus: but of that 
he says in Section XV. of his Azbliotheca as follows: I translate the 
whole section with its title: 


“ Book of the Aéts of the First Synod: 


“T have read a Look of the Aéts of the First Synod in three books. 
The work bears the name of Gelasius in its title, but it is no more a 
book of the Acts than it is a history. And futhermore it is mean 
and low as to style: but he narrates in detail those things which were 
done in the Synod (424). 

Gelasius of Cyzicus is of very little authority. Scholars like 
Cave, Dupin, Natalis Alexander, and Valesius assure us that it con- 
tains spurious matter and is not always correct, as to facts. See 
Venables’ article ‘‘ Gelasius (13) of Cyzicus’’ in Smith and Wace’s 
Diétionary of Christian Biography, where their judgments on the 
work are mentioned. 

In the article on ‘‘ Theodorus of Mopsuestia’’ by Professor Swete 
in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, Volume IV., 
page 943, right hand column, we read the following: 


(424). Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 103, column 56: Photii Patriar- 
chae C. P. Bibliotheca, Cod. XV., Πρακτικὸν τῆς ΤΠρῶτης Συνόδου * ἃ * ἘΕὐτελὴς 
δὲ Kai ταπεινὸς τὴν φράσιν, πλῆν ye λεπτομερῶς διέξεισι τὰ ἐν TH συνόδῳ. ‘The Latin in 
the parallel column in Migne renders the last Greek sentence above as follows: 
“Sermo vilis et humilis, nisi quod minima quaeque in Synodo gesta narret.”’ 


268 Chapter IV. 


‘A MS. history of the Nicene Council by Theodore of Mopsu- 
estia is said to be preserved in the library of the American Mission 
at Beirtit (Laurie, Account of Dr. Grant, Edinb. 1853). Swete 
thinks ‘‘// may possibly be a fragment of the catechetical lectures’ of 
Theodore of Mopsuestia of which Swete speaks in the parallel 
column. Whatever it is, it might be well for the Amerian Mission- 
aries there to describe it, and to publish it, for the information of 
scholars. If Theodore wrote it, we might naturally expect it to con- 
tain much heresy. 


It may be of some value, or it may be one of those spurious and 
worthless documents of which Hefele speaks on Nicaea. 


Balsamon, who died about A. D. 1204, mentions ¢he Ad?s of the 
First Ecumenical Synod. For, referring to the decision of the Coun- 
cilon Pask that is Easter, he remarks on Canon I. of Antioch as 
follows, 

‘That is not found among the canons of the Fathers at Nicaea, 
but it is found in the Acts of the First Synod’’ (425). 


Canon I., of Antioch refers to the decision of Nicaea on that 
topic. But no man can, from that language, feel sure that those 
words must mean that Balsamon had seen the Acts of Nicaea. Indeed, 
on reflection, it seems to me much more likely to refer to the decision 
on Pask in the Syodal Epistle of Nicaea, not inits Minutes. There is 
no proof that its Minutes existed in Balsamon’s day. 


The fact is that Eusebius of Caésarea, in his Life of Constantine, 
Book III., and Socrates in their Ecclesiastical Histories, and Athanas- 
ius in his works on the Arian controversy, give us the fullest details 
we possess on it. The main decisions were formulated in one day, 
June 19, 325. I have seen no details as to the time when the canons 
were made, whether on that day, or at a later session. Perhaps no 
Minutes of Nicaea were ever made: though the Dec/stons were written 
and were preserved. 


9. On what topics Nicaea decided. 


(425). Ralle and Potle’s Σύνταγμα τῶν ὃ * ἃ Κανόνων, tome 3, page 124, 
(Athens, 1853). Balsamon on Canon I., of the Synod of Antioch: ‘‘But the holy 
Fathers of the present Synod, say that the matters regarding that Feast [Easter] 
were decided by the First Synod. Ἔν γοῦν τοῖς κανόσι τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ Πατέρων τοῦτο’ 
οὐχ εὕρηται: εἰς δὲ τὰ πρακτικὰ τῆς πρώτης συνόδου εὑρίσκεται."" 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: The Council Itself. 269 


The great and most vital decisions are those against the denial of 
the Divinity of God the Word, and against its corollaries of Creature- 
Worship and Polytheism, yet like the Second Ecumenical Synod, the 
Third, and the Fourth, it decided in its Canons on other matters of 
doétrine, discipline and rite. We shall see what they are when we 
come to them. 


10. Why should not the gathering of the Apostles at Jerusalem, 
which acquitted Peter, as told in Adis X1., be deemed the First Lecumen- 
tcal Synod, and that in Adis XV., which vindicated the claim of Gentile 
Christians to be freed from the Mosaic Law be deemed the Second, m 
which case Nicaea would be reckoned the Third? 


Answer. Because, 1, Ecumenical means of the tnhabited world: 
and because at neither of those gatherings was the inhabited world 
represented. ‘The matter discussed at the gathering in Acts XI., oc- 
cured at Caesarea in Palestine, and so far as appears, only Palestinians 
were present. 


The gathering of the Apostles at Jerusalem, mentioned in Acts 
XV., was not Ecumenical either; for only Jerusalem and Palestine 
and Antioch in Syria were represented, though the faith had spread 
through the converts at Pentecost to different nations, and though 
we know that, before that, there were disciples at Damascus, one of 
whom baptized Paul. 


270 Chapter V. 


ΠΟ ASD a2. 


PE PRS BCU ΝΘ ΘΟ ΘΕ: 


INTRODUCTORY MATTER. 


CHAP ITER Υ. 


DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COUNCIL, BUT BEARING ON IT. 


1. A Synodical Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, 
and his Synod, to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople. 

2. An Encyclic Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, to the 
Bishops of the Universal Church everywhere. 

The next two documents are really not Forematter, but part of the 

documents of the Council itself. 

3. An Oration of the Emperor Constantine to the Synod of Nicaea 
on Peace. 

4. An Oration of the Orthodox Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, in 
the Nicene Synod, which ts addressed to the Emperor Con- 
stantine. 


DOCUMENTS PREFIXED TO THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA, A. D. 325, 
IN MANSI’S CONCILIA. 


It is customary in modern editions of the Councils to prefix to 
the Acts proper such documents as bear on the Synod most appositely 
and importantly. I give a list of all in Mansi’s Conczlza, that is 
Councils, tome li., page 641 and after: 

1 

A Synodical Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and of 
the Synod of Alexandria, which was held A. D. 321, to Alexander, 
Bishop of Byzantium, that ts of Constantinople. It is in Theodoret’s 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Documents before it. 271 


Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter IV. It is found in an English 
translation in Bohn and in Bagster. It is found in the 77ipartite 
ffistory, Book I., Chapter 14. It is a valuable document as show- 
ing the positions of the Alexandrian and Egyptian Orthodox at that 
time, and the tenets of the Arians, and the early history of the 
struggle. 
a 

An Encycdic Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, /o the 
Bishops of the Universal Church everywhere, against the Arian heresy. 
This is found in Socrates’ Lcclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter 6, 
and in Gelasius of Cyzicus’ Collection of the things done in the Council 
of Nicaea, Book II., Chapter 3. An English translation of it is 
found in Bohn’s £ccleszastical Library and in Bagster. 


> 


ce 
An Oration of the Emperor Constantine to the Synod of Nicaea 
on Peace. , 
This is found in Eusebius’ Life of the Emperor Constantine, Book 
III., Chapter 12. It is found in the translation of that work which 
is published by Bagster. 


Another and longer form of this Oration is found in Gelasius of 
Cyzicus’ Collection of the things done in the Council of Nicaea, but, as 
much that he writes is romance and not history, it can not be relied 
on as genuine. 

4. 

An Oration of the Orthodox Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, zz 
the Nicene Synod which is addressed to the Emperor Constantine. It 
is really only a short, but valuable address which Hardouin in his 
Concilia, tome i., index, mentions as from Baronius, Anno 325, Num. 
LV. It is found in Mansi, in a Latin version only. 


Venables’ article on ‘‘Austathius (3), Bishop * * * of 
Antioch’’ in Smith and Wace’s Dzétionary of Christian Biography, 
states that “πὸ Allocutio ad Imperatorem,’’ [that is the address of 
Eustathius to the Emperor] ‘‘givenby Labbé (Cozez/. II., 633) is cer- 
tainly supposititious. This fact is asserted by Theodoret (H. E., L., 
7), but contradicted by Sozomen (H. E., I., 19), who assigns the 
dignity to Eusebius. Eusebius himself maintains a discreet silence, 
but he evidently wishes it to be inferred that the anonymous occupant 


272 Chapter 1’. 


of the place of honor mentioned by him was himself (Zused. de Vit. 

Const. III., 11). ‘This is accepted by Valesius (not. ad loc.’’). 

Hardouin does not give it in column 310 or 311, tome i., of his 

Councils, but mentions it only in the /vdex at the beginning of that _ 
tome, where he speaks of it as ‘‘from Gregory of Caesarea, the pres- 

byter in his Oration on the Holy Fathers of the Nicene Council in LApo- 

mannus, tome vi.’’ Migne gives it in Greek in his Patologia Gracea, 
tome 18, column 673 and after. Mansi gives it in full in columns 
663, 664, of the second tome of his Concilia, but in Latin form only. 
But deferring, for the present, the question whether there was more 
than one address to the Emperor, it will suffice to say here that it 
does not seem probable that the great Orthodox majority of the Coun- 
cil would depute the persistent Arian, Eusebius, to address the Emperor 
for them, but would instigate one at least of their own number to 
speak to Constantine in their own behalf. And Fustathius stood 
deservedly high among them. From the wording of this address of 
Eustathius, I at first thought that it was delivered after the formal 
conviction of Arius and his heresies in the Council, on June 19, and 
that Eusebius of Caesarea spoke before. But, on reflection, that 
does not seem a probable view. For it should be said that Eusebius 
does not assert that he himself spoke, though Sozomen, writing in 
the century following, in Chapter XIX., of Book I., of his Aeclestastical 
History, says that it was he who delivered the opening address in 
the Council to the Emperor. But, as Baronius thinks (426), Sozomen 
may have misunderstood Eusebius’ non-mention of the name of the 
Bishop who made that address to Constantine, to imply that it was 
he (Eusebius) himself, but that from motives of modesty he omitted 
his ownname. But Baronius states that Sozomen seems not to have 
well understood the habits of Eusebius, for he never omits any oppor- 
tunity of speaking in a way to confer honor on himself, and passes 
over in silence only what proves his own baseness: ‘‘But,’’ adds 
Baronius, ‘‘it is rendered sufficiently clear that he himself [Eusebius], 
from envy, kept silence as to the name of the Bishop who in that 
most magnificent assembly was holding the first place on the right 
side, and first of all addressed the Emperor in that Oration. But 
that speaker was that great Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, who had 
been preferred to Eusebius himself for that see (as has been already 


(426). Baronius’ Annales Ecclesiastici, ad Annum 325, num. LIV., LV. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Documents before tt. 273 


told in detail); which Theodoret was not ignorant of, for’’ [in Chap- 
ter VII., (al. VI.,) Book I., of his Acclestastical History] ‘‘he says,”’ 
[I quote a little more of the chapter than Baronius gives, and I render 
it from the Greek. Theodoret is describing the entrance of the 
Emperor Constantine into the Council of Nicaea, and writes: 
(Chrystal) ]: 

“And a little seat having been placed in the midst [of the 
Council] he [Constantine] sat down [on it], after he had first asked 
the bishops to permit that thing, and with him sat down all that 
godly choir [of bishops]. And straightway first spoke the great 
Lustathius, who had gotten the foreseat (427) of the church of the 
Antiochians. For Philogonius, of whom I have spoken before, had 
passed over to the better life, and the high priests (428) and the 
priests (429) and all the Christ-loving people (430) had, by acommon 
vote, forced him [Eustathius], though he was unwilling, to accept 
the shepherdship, in his [Philogonius’] place. He crowned the head 
of the Emperor with the flowers of praises, and returned him bless- 
ings for his zeal for divine things. And, he having ended, the all- 
well-famed Emperor spoke words to them as to oneness of mind and 
harmony of speech,’’ (431) ete. 


‘“These things,’’ continues Baronius, ‘‘’Theodoret writes of the 
Oration of Eustathius. Moreover, Cassiodore has attempted to make 
Sozomen agree with Theodoret by saying that Eusebius spoke after 
Eustathius ; but Eusebius himself testifies that only one delivered an 


(427). Greek, τὴν προεδρίαν, that is the Presidency, that is the Episcopate. 
The throne of the Greek bishop when he is not in the chancel is before all the 
people, at the side, as I have seen in the Anglican church and in the Latin. 
Hence his title often among the old Greeks was the Foresitter, ὁ Upéedpoc. The 
Foresitters to whom the Emperor, after his own speech, turned over the business 
of the Council were the bishops of the great sees; Rome, present by his legates, 
and Alexandria, Antioch, etc., who were present in person. Any other noted 
bishop, like Hosius of Cordova in Spain for instance, might be added to them for 
convenience. I have seen no convincing proof that Hosius was a Roman legate, 
for the oldest authors mention only the presbyters Vitus and Vincent as such. 


(428). ‘That is, the bishops, Greek, ἀρχιερεῖς. 
(429). Greek, ἱερεῖς, that is, the presbyters. 
(430). That is, the laity. 


(431). Theodoret’s Church History, Book I., Chapter VI., col. 917, tome 82 
of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. 


274 Chapter Κ΄. 


oration, and no one after him discharged the same function [of orator] 
in the Synod. Indeed, Gregory, the Presbyter of Caesarea, gives the 
very short oration which was delivered by Eustathius, as follows” : 
Then Baronius gives a Latin translation of Eustathius’ oration 
above. ‘The place in Cassiodore, to which Baronius refers, is Chapter 
V., book 11., of his 7ripartite History (see note 46, col. 1066 of tome 
20, of Migne’s Patrologia Gracea). ‘This last-named note states from 
Nicetas that Theodore of Mopsuestia writes that the honor of 
making that address had been ascribed to Alexander, Bishop of Alex- 
andria; but I presume that statement was based on the fact that as prob- 
ably neither Vitus nor Vincent, the two legates of Rome, the first 
see, was able to speak in Greek, the language of the bulk of those 
present, and so could not so well represent them, nor be understood 
by them; and as, moreover, neither of them was a bishop, that honor 
would naturally fall to the see next in rank at that time, which was 
Alexandria. But the statement of Theodoret contradicts that view 
and assigns that oration to Eustathius, of Antioch, the see next in 
rank after Alexandria. And that is not strange, for as those two 
bishops were in all probability among ¢he Foresitters or Presidents, 
(τοῖς τῆς συνόδου προέδροις), to whom the Emperor handed over the 
business of the Council after his own address, the address to the 
Emperor may have been assigned to Eustathius, in the division of 
labors and of duties among those Presidents, or he spoke first because 
he may have been the best orator among the Foresitters, or because 
as the Emperor in his ignorance of theology had, at the beginning of 
the controversy, censured Alexander for maintaining Orthodoxy, and 
as Alexander might be supposed to be less popular with Constantine 
for that reason, and as it was desirable to gain the monarch for 
Orthodoxy, therefore Alexander might well have made way for the 
nonce for the able champion from Antioch. 


The same note (46) argues that the unnamed bishop must be 
Eusebius of Caesarea, because at the beginning of Book II., of his 
Life of Constantine, he writes : 

‘‘And we, ourselves, taking aside the gloriously triumphant 
Emperor when he was in the midst of a Synod [or ‘‘a gathering’’] of 
God’s ministers were honoring him with Vicennalian hymns.’’ 


But to this I reply, that this relates to the Emperor’s Vicennalza, 
which did not occur till after the Synod of Nicaea had ended, and 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Documents before it. 275 


that his words evidently refer to the banquet given by the Emperor 
to the Bishops to celebrate [his] Vecennalia. An account of that 
banquet is given by Eusebius in Chapter XV., Book III., of his Le 
of Constantine. ‘Then Eusebius of Caesarea had signed, though 
reluctantly, as Athanasius in Section 2 ο7 the Nicene Definition shows, 
the Nicene Creed, and might have got an aside hearing from the 
Emperor. Even then, it doesnot appear that Eusebius was deputized 
by the Council to represent them, nor did he address the Emperor 
before them all, but fook him aside not to deliver an address to him, 
but to read hymns to him which he had composed in his honor, and 
seemingly to win his favor. The memory of Eusebius’ persistent 
heresy was still fresh in the minds of the Synod, and, if they knew 
his real sentiments, they would find that his acceptance of the 
Homoousion was insincere and that he was as much an Arian as ever, 
as events following showed. 


The account given by Eusebius himself in Chapter XI., Book 
1ΠῚ., of his L2fe of Constantine, agrees with the Oration of Eustathius, 
not with any hymns of Eusebius, on Constantine’s Vicennalia. 
Eusebius in that place describes it as follows: 


I give a literal translation of the beginning of Chapter XI., Book 
III., of Eusebius’ Lzfe of Constantine, in Migne’s Patrologia Gracea, 
tome 20, col. 1065. It is as follows: 


‘“And he, among the bishops who held the first place on the 
right row, rose up and began to deliver a measured oraticn (432), ad- 
dressing the Emperor, and making a hymn of thanksgiving to 
Almighty God for him; and when he himself also had sat down, 
silence prevailed, and all looked intently at the Emperor.’’ Then 
the Emperor spoke. 


This description tallies well with the contents of Eustathius’ 
speech to the Emperor. It is at the same time an address to the 
Emperor and a hymn of thanksgiving regarding him, though of course 
it is not in rhyme, because the ancients did not use rhyme. 


(432). Greek, μεμετρημένον * * ἃ Λόγον. I understand this to mean that 
the orator was not to be too lengthy, but was to limit himself within a certain 
measure of time. This implies great care on the part of the presiding prelates 
and systematic arrangement of the proceedings. It may have been chanted as 
a recitative. 


276 Chapter V. 


Another argument against the view that Eusebius of Caesarea 
made the opening speech is that in order to do so, at least as the re- 
presentative of the Council, he must have been deputed by the Council, 
or possibly by the Emperor to that task: but the Orthodox Synod would 
not depute an Arian heretic like Eusebius; for he had been notorius asa 
champion of Arius from the beginning of the controversy: and the 
Emperor’s own conduct in the Council in persuading bishops to adopt 
the ὁμοούσιον, that is the expression ‘‘of the same substance,’ shows 
that he was not under the influence then of Eusebius, but of his old 
Spanish Friend, Hosius, an Orthodox leader. Eusebius of Caesarea, 
and Eusebius of Nicomedia were bitter enemies of Eustathius, and 
wrought him woe by intrigue afterwards, and by deposition wrongly. 
It is no wonder then that Eusebius of Caesarea in his Lz/e of Constan- 
tine omits Hustathius’ name, the more so as Eustathius’ Oration 
denounces his Arianism. Eusebius omits also the names of those who 
faulted the Arians after the Emperor’s speech. I would conclude 
then by saying that Eustathius’ speech is undoubtedly genuine. Its 
internal evidence also makes strongly for it, for it savors of the strong 
opposition to Arian creature-service which we find in Athanasius and 
other Orthodox leaders of that time. It is so short that I give it all: 
it is as follows: 


‘“We give thanks, O most excellent Emperor, to God who giveth 
thee the empire of the earth, who by thee hath abolished the error of 
images, and hath given freedom to the well disposed minds of the 
faithful. The steam [of the sacrifices] of demons hath ceased. the 
objects of worship of the Greek Polytheism have been destroyed 
(433), the darkness of ignorance has been driven away: the whole 
world is illuminated by the light of the knowledge of God: the Father 
is glorified; the Son is co-bowed to [with Him]; the Holy Ghost is 
proclaimed; the consubstantial Trinity, one Divinity in Three Per- 
sons and Hypostases is preached. By that Trinity, O Emperor, the 
power of thy piety is fortified. Guard it well and inviolate for us. 
Let no heretic who has secretly stolen into the Church, take away 
any one thing from the Trinity, and so leave dishonored what will 
then be left of it. Arius has given his name to the madness, and is 
the cause of this controversy (434) and this assembling. He, though 


(433). Or, ‘‘have lost their hold,”’ (καταλέλυται). * 
(434). Or “‘this matter,” τοῦ λόγου. 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Documents before tt. 277 


we know not how, was enrolled on the list of the presbyters of the 
Church of the Alexandrians, and unknown to us was an alien to the 
doctrine of the thrice blessed prophets and apostles. For he does 
not dread to rob the Sole-Born Son and Word of the Father of His 
Consubstantiality with the Father, and THE CREATURE-WORSHIPPER 
EAGERLY TRIES TO CO-NUMBER THE CREATOR WITH WHAT HAS BEEN 
CREATED (435). But mayest thou persuade him, O Autocrat, to 
change his mind and not to strive against the apostolic doctrines; or, 
if he persists in the impieties of the wicked opinions in which he has 
been detected, mayest thou cause him to disappear utterly from the 
fold of Christ and of us, so that he may not make the souls of the 
more simple a prey to his turbid and flattering language’’ (436). 

According to the article, Avstathius of Antioch (‘‘ Kustathius 
(3)? ) in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, 
Theodoret makes special mention of a Sermon of Eustathius on 
Proverbs VIII., 22, extracts from which are found in Theodoret’s 
Eranistes, Dial. II., p. 90, and Dial. III., p. 156. 


In columns 679 to 686, tome 18 of Migne’s Patrologia Gracea, 
we find passages quoted by Theodoret from a sermon of our Eustathius 
on Proverbs VIII., 22, ‘‘ The Lord made mea beginning of His ways,” 
Κύριος ᾿ἐχτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ, in which he explains orthodoxically 
that text which the Arians so much perverted. Venables, in his 
article on Lustathius, in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian 
Biography, remarks : 

‘Excerpts from his Light Books Against the Arians, gathered 
from Photius, Facundus, Gelasius, etc., are given by Galland (z. s.), 
Fabricius (7blioth-Graec, 1X., 131, ff. ed., Harles), and Migne (z. 
Se Par Oleth. yor 

We see from this how much he wrote against Arianism, and how 
able he was. He might be deservedly chosen, therefore, to address 
Constantine against it. 

On the Arian side, as showing their heresies in their own words, 
may be especially mentioned the three documents from the pen of 


(435). Migne’s Patrologia Gracea, tome 18, col. 673-676: Sancti Eustathii 
episcopi Antiocheni AJllocutio ad Imperatorem Constantinum in Concilio 
Nicaeno: Tov yap μονογενῇ Ὑἱὸν καὶ Λόγον tov Πατρὸς ἀποστερεῖν τῆς ὁμοουσιόϊητος 

Me OV ON ELT ) ρ ρ I 
τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐκ ἐντρέπεται, καὶ τῇ κτίσει τὸν Κτίστην ὁ κτιστολάτρης συναριθμεῖν ἐπείγεται. 


(436). Ibid. 


278 Chapter V. 


Arius, mentioned in Chapter III. above, and the Epistle of Eusebius, 
Bishop of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre, which is in 
Chapter VI., Book I., of Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History. 

Kustathius, though only the third of the great bishops of the 
Church, and therefore after the Bishop of Alexandria, was perhaps 
the chief actor. Even the partisan Romanist, Hefele, proves his high 
position in the Council. I quote page 38, volume 1, Clark’s English 
translation of his //¢story of the Christian Councils : 


‘“‘Eustathius, Archbishop of Antioch, * * * according to 
Theodoret (Ast. Eccl. /., 7), pronounced the speech in question [at 
the opening of the Council] which was addressed to the Emperor. He 
was one of the great patriarchs; and one of his successors, John, 
Archbishop of Antioch, ina letter to Proclus, calls him the ‘/irst of the 
Nicene fathers.’ ‘The Chronicle of Nicephorus expresses itself in the 
same way about him (Tillemont, AZémoires pour servir ἃ δ᾽ Hist. 
Lied. VI., 272, Brux. 1732). Wecan not, however, be considered as 
the only president of the Council of Nicaea ; for we must regard the 
expression of Eusebius (437) which is in the plural (τοῖς zpoddpors) ; 
and besides it must not be forgotten that the Patriarch of Alexandria 
ranked higher than the Patriarch of Antioch. Yo which, thirdly, it 
must be added, that the Nicene Council itself, in its letter to the 
Church of Alexandria (Cf. Socrat. I., 9), says: ‘ Your bishop will 
give you fuller explanation of the Synodical decrees, for he has been a 
Master (438) (Κύριος) and participator (κοινωνός) 72 all things that have 
been done’’ (439). 

‘These words seem to give a reason for the theory of Schréckh 
(Schrockh, Avrchengeschichte, Thl. V., s. 335) and others, that Alex- 


(437). Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, Book III., Chapter 13. 


(438). Hefele renders Kipio¢ by leader, which is not its exact sense, but I 
have preferred the common meaning of the word, J/as¢er. 


(439). I give a literal translation of the above passage and what is just be- 
fore it. The Greek is found in column 81, of tome 67 of Migne’s Patro/ogia 
Graeca: Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, Book 1., Chapter 9 : 

“These are the chief matters and those which pertain to Egypt and the 
most holy Church of the Alexandrians. And whatsoever else has been set forth 
as a canon or as a dogma, the Master (τοῦ κυρίου) and most honored Fellow- 
Minister, our brother Alexander, who is present himself, will report to you 
more in detail (ἀκριβέστερον) inasmuch as he was a Master and a sharer of all’ 
those things which were done’’—(are δὴ καὶ κύριος καὶ κοινωνὸς τῶν γεγενημένων 
τυγ χάνων). 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Documents before tt. 279 


ander and Eustathius were both presidents, and that they are intended 
by Eusebius (440) when he speaks of the πρόεδροι, that is the 
Presidents, (literally, ‘‘the Loresitters’’).”’ 


There may have been more than two, or three, including the two 
representatives of Rome, Vitus and Vincent, as representing one see, 
and Hosius may have been added as a friend of the Emperor ; for if 
Hosius was, as one account has it, an Egyptian, or even of Egyptian 
descent only, he might well know Greek, and as long resident in 
Spain he knew Latin fluently, and hence was well adapted to be an 
intermediary between the Latin-speaking Emperor and the mainly 
Greek-speaking Conncil. 


The greater metropolitans were prominent at Ephesus, that is 
the Place-holders of Celestine, Metropolitan of Rome, Cyril, Metro- 
politan of Alexandria, and of all Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, 
Memnon, Metropolitan of Ephesus, and of the Diocese of Asia (441), 
etc. So it was in other Ecumenical Councils, the first generally 
leading if he understood Greek well; if not, the second if he did. 


I would add that the fact that we see the greater J/etropolitans 
(called later often Patriarchs), leading their suffragans in the Councils 
is easily explained by the fact that they led and ruled them at home. 
Yet every Suffragan could speak and vote in every Ecumenical 
Council, and had one vote just as his metropolitan had. ‘The letter 
of Theodosius II., convoking the Third Ecumenical Synod orders 
each Metropolitan to select and bring with him to it such of his 
Suffragans as were most fit. 


Hefele next attempts to show that Hosius was President of the 
Council. He seems to have been one of them and a very active one, 
for he certainly seems to have inclined the Emperor to the Homo- 
ousion. Hefele further tries to make out that Hosius was a legate 
of Rome. But Morse, in his article on Hfos7us in Smith and Wace’s 
Dittionary of Christian Biography, shows that that notion originated 
with the very inaccurate Gelasius of Cyzicus in the last half of the 
fifth century and that Eusebius of Caesarea who was present at the 
Council enumerates only the two Roman Presbyters, Vitus and Vin- 
cent, as Roman legates, and that Sozomen does the same, and that 


(440). Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, Book YE., Chapter 13. 
(441). Bingham’s Anéig., Book TX., Chaper E., Section 6, 


280 Chapter V. 


the bulk of all the testimony is against the notion that Hosius was a 
legate of Rome. See Morse’s remarks on that matter on pages 168 
and 169, of Volume III., of Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian 
Ligraphy. Compare also the three lists in Cowper’s Syriac 
Miscellanies, pages 8, 25 and 31, of the bishops at Nicaea; the last 
two of which mention Hosius as from Spain, and Vitus and Vincent 
(misspelled in list 3) as the representatives of Rome. List 1. agrees 
with them except in putting Hosius’ see in Italy, but he does not 
even then sign as representing Rome, but himself; whereas Vitus and 
Vincent alone sign in all three lists as representing the Bishop of 
Rome. 


oer 


6% 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Genuine Utterances. 281 


NICASA, A. D. 329: 


Mipe FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCTE, 


Its GENUINE UTTERANCES. 


CHAPTER.” VE 


CONTENTS. 
1. THE SYNODAL EPISTLE. 
2. THE CREED. 
3. THE TWENTY CANONS. 
The Genuine Remains of the First Ecumenical Council are: 
χ. Its Synodal Epistle. 
2. fis ‘Creed. 
3. Its Twenty Canons. 


The Doubted, and the Spurious Matter ascribed to it will be- 

mentioned further on. 
τὸ 
THE SYNODAL EPISTLE. 

This is extant in Greek in Socrates’ Acclesiastical History, Book. 
I., Chapter IX., from which we give it. It is found also in Theo-- 
doret’s Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter VIII., which is some-- 
times numbered 9. 

ITS CONTENTS. 
The Epistle treats mainly of four matters: 


(A.) Arius and his heresies, of which we have spoken sufh- 
ciently above, are condemned. The names of two Egyptian Bishops,, 


282 Chapter VT. 


‘Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais are specified, as 
having been condemned with Arius by the Synod, evidently to warn 
‘the Alexandrians against them. (There is a short account of Secun- 
‘dus under ‘‘Secundus (3) in Smith and Wace’s Dzétionary of 
Christian Biography). 

(B.) The Meletian Schism which had distracted part or all of 
Egypt ts condemned, and order is given as to how Meletius and his 
partisans shall be received. 

Who Meletius was. He was one of the principal bishops of 
Egypt and was subject to the Metropolitan of Alexandria, who had 
‘the right to ordain all the bishops of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, as 
Bingham shews (442). The Metropolitan had supreme control over 
all the provinces of the whole Diocese of Egypt, which according to 
the civil Notitia were six in number (443), and according to another 
were three, and according to still another were nine (444). On those 
points Bingham gives the details in his Aztiguzties of the Christian 
Church, Book IX.,*Chapter I., Sections 1 to 9, and Book IX., Chap- 
ter II., Section 6. -In Book II., Chapter XVI., Sections 13 and 23, 
and in Chapter XVII., Section 11, he gives the details as to the 
rights and powers of the Bishop of Alexandria over all the bishops 
of all the provinces of Egypt. They were very great. 


Meletius, or Melitius, as Hefele tells us (445), Athanasius spells 
the name, started a schism, as did the Novatians in Italy and the 
Donatists in Africa, on the plea that the church was not severe 
enough towards those who had fallen in persecution and afterwards 
repented and came back to the church, rebelled against his own Met- 
ropolitan, Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, usurped the power of 
ordaining bishops which belonged to him alone, and set up bishop 
against bishop and presbyter against presbyter and altar against altar. 

The Council then in that case vindicated the claim of the Chief 
Metropolitan of the nation of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis to rule 
and to order all his suffragans, whether they were at the head of a 


(442). Bingham’s Antizg, Book II., Chapter XVI., Sections 13 and 23, and 
Chapter XVII., Section II. 


(443). Id., Book IX., Chapter I., Sections I to 9. 

(444). Id., Book IX., Chapter II., Section 6. 

(445). Hefele’s History of the Christian Councils, Clark’s translation, Vol. 
I., page 345. eal 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Lts Genuine Uiterances. 285 


province or not, and condemned the suffragan Meletius for usurping 
those powers of ordination and rule which belong to the supreme 
National Metropolitan alone. Canons IV., V., VI. and XV., of the 
Council have reference to Meletius and hisschism. Whether Meletius 
was a Primate of a province, or a mere suffragan, is not soclear. In 
either case he was a usurper. 


THE LESSON TO US. 


The canons, in making the highest Metropolitan of a nation, 
what we would now call a National Patriarch, guarded the religious 
unity of Egypt and fortified it against schisms; for the tendency 
would have been for each minor Metropolitan if offended with his 
Patriarch, to burst away from him; and the local feeling of his partic- 
ular province would in many cases help him to break unity, just as 
our state system has a tendency to break up our national unity, and 
to split us into fragments. 


I have seen no proof that the term metropolitan is applied to any 
bishop under Alexander, Metropolitan of Alexandria, and certainly 
it could not be used of any of the bishops under him, in the sense it 
is of him in Canon VI., of Nicaea. ‘The chief bishop of a province 
under Carthage was called a Primate, that is a /77s/, but originally 
not a metropolitan, that term seemingly at first being limited to the 
bishop of the chief see of the nation, that is of its capital, or Metro- 
polis. For originally at the first planting of the Gospel the Metro- 
politan of Rome was the only chief bishop in his country of Italy; 
so the Bishop of Alexandria was the only chief bishop in Egypt; so 
the Bishop of Antioch was the only chief bishop in Syria; so the 
Bishop of Carthage was the only chief bishop in Latin Africa, etc. 
But in time lesser primates became necessary as numbers and Church 
business increased, and so the term A7chbishop is found in Epiphanius 
on the Heresy of the Ariomaniacs of Meletius, the head possibly of 
such a province, under Alexandria, and the term pr7mate, or senex 
of the head of such a province, under Carthage in Africa: and as time 
wore on such minor metropolitans began to be called AZetropolitans, 
after the old greater Metropolitans began to be called Patriarchs, 
though 216 term Patriarch itself does not occur in the Ecumenical 
Canons, and though some scholars regard it therefore as a merely 
complimentary name. Yet for convenience sake it seems best to re- 
tain it, and to apply it and ZAvarch to the head of every national 


284 Chapter VI. 


church. ‘The latter term is used in the sense of Patriarch in Canon 
IX. of Chalcedon, as Hammond, on it says. Heis the head Bishop 
of the Diocese, and presides in the Council of the Diocese of Canons 
II. and VI., of the Second Ecumenical Council. Jerome, and others 
as Bingham shows (in his Antiquities, Book II., Chapter XVII., 
Sections 7, 8 and 9, etc.), held, in effect, that Canon VI. of Nicaea 
guarantees the power of the Patriarch of Alexandria over the Metro- 
politans, as we now term them, under him. 


The Metropolitan, or as we now say, the Patriarch of Carthage, 
held a to some extent similar power over the Primates of all the prov- 
inces of Latin Africa; and preserved their ecclesiastical and national 
unity. For he defended their ecclesiastical weal against schisms at 
home, and against the attempt of the Bishop of Rome abroad to 
secure Appellate Jurisdiction there, and so tosubjugate Latin Africa’s 
Church, as the secular power of Rome had subjugated the secular 
dominion of Carthage. We shall see this on Canons of Nicaea 
furtheron. Carthage, in other words, was the head of the National 
North African Church. So the Metropolitan of Antioch, the 
Patriarch of it, as we would now say, was the head of the National 
Church of all Syria, and controlled its other Metropolitans. So the 
Bishop of Rome was the head of the National Italian Church of the 
seven provinces of South Italy, and of the three Italian islands, Sicily, 
Sardinia and Corsica, and was over the other Metropolitans there. 
The powers of every such National Patriarch are confirmed in Canon 
VI. of Nicaea, and Canon VI. of 1 Constantinople. As Bingham 
shows in his Antiquities, Book II., Chapters XVI and XVII., they 
were great, though not always the same. Such power is necessary in 
every National Church. Hence the Bishop of London at the next 
vacancy of the see of Canterbury should be Patriarch of all England, 
and head of the Diocesan Synod of all England, and have such 
power over the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, and over all 
other metropolitical sees of England, if any others are created, and 
over the whole English National Church as the Patriarch of Alexan- 
dria had over his Metropolitans and the National Church of Egypt, 
the Patriarch of Antioch over the Metropolitans and National Church 
of all Syria, the Patriarch of Rome over his national South Italian 
Church, or over the whole Italian Church, if it be deemed best, etc. 


And so the Bishop of New York or of Washington should be 


Nicaéi, A. D. 325: Its Genuine Utteranceés. 285 


Patriarch of all the National American Church, and should ordain 
and control all its other metropolitans, and to preserve the national 
religious unity, there should be but one Diocese in all the United 
States and-to its Diocesan Council should there be the right of appeal 
from the decision of every provincial council in our land, the Bishop 
of New York or Washington being ex-officio its President. ‘This 
would be in accordance with Canon VI. of Nicaea and Canons 11. 
and VI. of 1 Constantinople. ‘That Diocesan Council, as well as 
each provincial Council, must consist of Bishops alone, according to 
those laws of the Universal Church. 

Such practically Patriarchal power has existed from the begin- 
ning, as I show elsewheve, as we seein the rule of the Apostle Paul 
over those who were practically his suffragans, Timothy and Titus. 
And gradually the people of each nation grouped themselves naturally, 
as a matter of convenience, about the Bishop of their chief city, whose 
language and race was theirs, and whose interests were theirs in 
church and state. ‘That system is approved in those canons. Rome 
in the middle ages and since has practically opposed it, and acting in 
accordance with the maxim, ‘‘ Divide et impera,”’ “ Divide and rule,”’ 
has set up the power of minor Metropolitans against their chief national 
Metropolitans, that is against their own should-be Partriarchs, and by 
working craftily on their jealousies and ambitions has set them at 
variance, drawn appeals from their own should-be Patriarch to Rome, 
and has tyrannized over them, and forced the Latin language on 
them in service and corrupted their faith. But no appeals are allowed 
according to the canons from the Diocesan, that is the National Synod, 
except, 1, 40 the whole sound Episcopate of the Christian world distrt- 
buted, that is, at their homes; and, 2, Zo the same Episcopate im L£cu- 
menical Council assembled. Hence those appeals, when the uni- 
versal episcopate becomes sound again, should be allowed 
from the Patriarch of London, and the Diocesan Synod of all England; 
and in the United States from the Patriarch of New York or Wash- 
ington, and the Diocesan Council of the whole United States. So 
shall we preserve our language and keep our people free from Roman 
idolatry. ‘The secular power which has so often in every Western 
land helped Rome against their own chief national Prelate should 
help him in every way, and forbid Rome to usurp his canonical 
power. Otherwise we shall become not brethren to foreign bishops, 
‘but their helots and slaves, lose our language in the service, and be- 


286 Chapter VI. 


come creature-servers, to our endless loss. Canon IX. of the Fourth 
Ecumenical Synod is peculiar in allowing an appeal from all the 
Patriarchs of the National Church of the Eastern Empire to its chief 
National Patriarch at Constantinope. This, however, is only an 
instance of an appeal to the head of a National Church. 


(C). The Decision on the Paschal Festival is next mentioned. 


This, though originally only a slight difference in rite between 
certain churches of Asia and therest of the Christian world, had be- 
come grave in its consequences: for some, as Eusebius states (446), 
were celebrating the Easter Festival in joy while others were still 
fasting, and much inconvenience resulted. Besides the stiff Quarto- 
decimans, in their zeal for the observance of the Paschal Festival, 
were, as Epiphanius on that error shows (447), prone to Judaize by 
asserting that it was commanded in the Law of Moses; which argu- 
ment was folly, for the Law of Moses had never been given to the 
Gentile World, and, as Epiphanius in effect argues, the law is done 
away. Hence one might as well quote to a Christian the abolished 
law of Moses for circumcision, and for other peculiar Jewish obser- 
vances, as for the fourteenth day of Nisan. Epiphanius tells us that 
the Quartodecimans held to the common articles of Christian faith, 
but were peculiar as to the day of the Paschal feast (448). We find 
the following summary on them in his Paxarion: ‘The Fourteenth- 
dayites are those who keep the Pask on the same day every year, 
that ison whatsoever sort of a day the fourteenth day of the moon may 
fall, whether it be on Saturday or on the Lord’s day; and they fast. 
and at the same time keep vigil on it’’ (449). 


Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, in his Ecclesiastical History, Book 
V., Chapters XXIII., XXIV. and XXV., shows how much contro- 
versy there was, even in the second century, on that matter, how 
Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, went to Rome to see Anicetus, Bishop of 
that see, and tried to persuade him to observe his practice which he 
derived from St. John, and how Anicetus tried to persuade him to 
follow the Lord’s Day Pask, old in Rome, how neither succeeded, 


(446). Eusebius’ L2/e of Constantine, Book III., Chapter V. 

(447). Epiphanius’ Paxarion, Heresy 50. 

(448). Ibid. 

(449). The Synopsis of the Quartodeciman Heresy, just before the Book in 
which it stands (page 420, vol. i., of Dindorf’s Epiphanius). 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Its Genuine Utterances, 287 


how Anicetus yielded to Polycarp the office of consecrating the 
Eucharist, how they communed with each other and separated in, 
peace. Anicetus was Bishop of Rome about A. Ὁ. 157-161. On 
other matters they disputed and were reconciled, but on Pask, St. 
Polycarp stood firm. Afterwards Victor, Bishop of Rome, A. D. 185- 
197, put the Quartodeciman brethren out of his own communion 
and tried to get others to do the same, but failed; for Eusebius, as 
above, shows that bishops who were not Fourteenthdayites, like 
Irenaeus, and others ‘‘pressed upon Victor with much severity’? and 
rebuked him for his rashness, and counselled moderation and unity: 
and forbearance. ‘The Quartodeciman brethren accordingly were in 
communion with the Church till the Council of Nicaea, when they. 
came around to the common view, as Eusebius shows (450). ‘The 
facts incontestibly prove that while the Bishop of Rome was regarded 
with respect, he had no power to cut off any church out of his own 
jurisdiction in Italy, nor any power of himself alone to settle any. 
religious controversy; but that an Ecumenical Synod had; for the few 
who did not submit to Nicaea were deemed heretics in that they re- 
fused to hear the Church (4504). Those chapters of Eusebius’ Zcclesiasti- 
cal Fistory are well translated by Dr. Cruse, and published by Bohn, and 
well repay persusal. Besides, the following authors have gleaned the 
ancient authorities on the early disputes as to the proper time of ob- 
serving the Paschal Festival: 


1. Bingham in his Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book XX., 
Chapter V., page 10. That chapter is well epitomized in the begin- 
ning of Volume VII., of the Oxford ten-volume edition of A. D. 
1855. 

2. Hensley’s article ‘‘Zaster,’’ in Smith and Cheetham’s Dic- 
tionary of Christian Antiquities. 

3. Hefele’s Hzstory of the Church Councils, Volume I., Clark’s 
translation, /zdex, under ‘‘Zaster.’’ He is, however, partisan, and 
sometimes very inexact, where Rome is mentioned. 


(450). Eusebius’ Lzfe of Constantine, Book III., Chapter XIV. 


(450%2). No one Apostle, even though, like Peter, he be “first among his 
eguals,’’ can usurp the powers of rule, and of defining on doétrine, discipline and 
rite, which Christ gave to the whole body of the Apostles. Paul, an Apostle, 
“‘withstood’”’ Peter, an Apostle, ‘‘¢o his face because he was to be blamed,” 
Galations II., 11. Paul and Barnabas, Apostles, differed on a small matter, like 
Pask, and did not excommunicate each other, Aéts XV., 29. 


288 Chapter VI. 


AUTHORITY GIVEN BY THE SYNOD TO THE BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA 
TO DETERMINE THE PASK LORD’S DAY.—DIFFERENCES 
AFTERWARDS AMONG THOSE WHO HELD TO NICAEA, AS TO 
WHAT LORD’S DAY SHOULD BE KEPT AS EASTER.- 

FINAL AGREEMENT OF ALL, AND DISAPPEAR- 

ANCE OF FOURTEENTH DAY SECTS.—FOLLY 
OF SOME MODERN DIFFERENCES 

AS TO EASTER. 


ἢ 


/The-First ecumenical Council deputed the work of computing 
Easter to the Bishop of Alexandfia, because, according to the ex- 
planation of Pope Leo I., Alexandria excelled in learning for that 
purpose. ‘This is clear from Pope Leo the First’s Epistle CXXI., in 
“Migne’s edition, which is addressed to the Emperor Marcian. Leo I. 
states that there had been error and consequent differences as to what 
day should be observed as Pask, and then refers to the Decision of 
the First Ecnmenical Council on it, as follows: 


“ Therefore the holy Fathers studied to remove the occasion of that 
error, by delegating all that care to the Bishop of Alexandria, (foras- 
much as from old time skill in that sort of computing seemed to have 
Been handed down among the Egyptians): in order that through him, 
{the Bishop of Alexandria], the day of the aforesaid Festival should 
every year be made known to the Apostolic See, and that by his letters 
the general notice [of the correct day] might run through to the more 
remote churches’? (451). 


hen he refers to a difference between his own reckoning of 
Easter, as to when it would fall in the seventy-sixth year of Theo- 
philus, the Bishop of Alexandria’s, computation of one hundred 
Pasks, beginning with that for A. D. 380, and prays the Emperor to 
deign to pay attention to that matter, and to induce ‘‘¢he Egyptians, 
or whosoever else may have certain knowledge of that sort of reckoning, 


(451). Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tome 54, col. 1056 Leon. Magn. Epist. 
ΟΧΧΙ., (4d Marcianum Augustum), de Paschate, cap. 1, Studuerunt itaque 
sancti Patres occasionem hujus erroris auferre, omnem hance curam Alexandrino 
episcopo delegantes (quoniam apud A%gyptios hujus supputationis antiquitus 
tradita esse videbatur peritia) per quem, quotannis dies praedi¢tae solemmnitatis 
Sedi Apostolicae indicaretur, cujus scriptis ad longinquiores Ecclesias indicium 
generale percurreret. 3 


Nicaea, A. 22. 325: Its Genuine Utterances. 289 


to solve his doubts’’ on the matter (452). Leo I. has reference to the 
Easter of A. D. 455. 


I find that there is an alleged Paschal Prologue of St. Cyril of 
Alexandria, which states on the year 437, as follows: 


‘“‘By the agreement of a Synod of the Saints of the whole world, 
it has been decreed that inasmuch as it has been found that the 
Church of Alexandria has been famous for science, as to when on the 
Calends, or Ides, or moon, the Pask ought to be celebrated, it should 
every year intimate it ina letter to the Roman Church, whence by 
Apostolic authority, the Universal Church throughout the whole 
world should learn without any doubt, the exact day of the Pask’’ 
(453). 

This is so much stronger in favor of Rome, than Leo’s language 
above, that I have been led to doubt its genuineness, the more par- 
ticularly as it is found, according to Hefele, in Latin only (454). 
From Leo’s language above, we should infer that the Bishop of Alex- 
andria was to tell the exact day of Easter to the Bishop of Rome, in 
order that he might transmit it by letter ‘‘ 40 the more remote churches,’ 
that is, evidently, of the West, such as Gaul, Spain, Britain, etc., 
which did not, however, imply any jurisdiction over them; whereas 
the alleged Paschal Prologue of Cyril of Alexandria might be taken 
to mean that the Bishop of Rome was to announce it to the whole 
world. But I am not aware that Rome at any time announced the 
time of Easter to any Oriental Bishop, whereas in the matter on the 
struggle between Carthage and Rome, translated farther on in this 
work, we find the same St. Cyril of Alexandria announcing, before 
that, the day of Pask to the North African Latin Church. But we do 
find that not every year, but on some one or more years, the Bishop 
of Rome had announced the date of the Pask to the farther West 
Churches, as had been their wish at the Council of Arles, A. D. 314 
(455); hence to Britian also, for on Augustine’s going there to con- 


(452). Id. 

(453). Id., col. 1055, quoted in note ‘‘g’’ there. 

(454). Hefele’s History of the Christian Councils, Vol. I., page 326, note 3. 

(455). In Migne’s Peltier’s Dictionnaire des Conciles, under ‘‘Arles * 
* * Van 314,” we find the statement in column 190 that the bishop of Rome 
announced the day of Easter to the Westerns, and the Bishop of Alexandria to 
the Easterns. The remark is made by a Romanist. 


290 Chapter VI. 


— 


vert the Saxons and on his trying to induce the British Christians to 
accept the new Roman computation of Easter, they refused, and 
adhered to an older Roman computation which had reached them 
before, either directly from Rome, or indirectly tirough Gaul, or 
elsewhere. ‘That of course shows that the Britons had not got the 
time from Rome every year, or they would have known the new rule. 
It shows, moreover, that they did not deem themselves bound to 
accept a date for the Festival just because it came from Rome, though 
Nicaea seems to have intended, if Leo be correct, that the Alexan- 
drian time should be passed on by the Bishop of Rome to the remoter 
churches of the West. But as Rome, by receiving it from Alexan- 
dria, did not admit any jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria at 
Rome; and as Carthage by receiving it from Alexandria, did not 
admit any jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria in North Africa; 
so neither did Britain, by receiving it from Rome, admit any jurisdic- 
tion of the Bishop of Rome in Britain. The giving out the exact 
time from Alexandria to the East and to Latin Africa, and from 
Rome to the ‘‘ore remote churches’? of the West, was merely a 
brotherly act on the part of those two chief bishops to ensure uniform- 
ity as to the day of its observance, and, so far as the computation of 
it by Alexandria is concerned, it rested on the authorization and ap- 
pointment, and order of the Supreme Tribunal of the whole Church, 
its Court of Final Appeal, an Ecumenical Council, that is that of 
Nicaea, not on the Bishop of Rome nor the Bishop of Alexandria, nor 
on any other one Bishop. 


Hefele shows, further on, that after the Council of Nicaea, while 
Alexandria and Rome both agreed in keeping the Pask on the Lord’s 
Day, there remained a differing way of reckoning it, so that some 
years one kept it on one Lord's Day, and the other on another; and that 
the Emperor Theodosius the Great, asked Theophilus, Bishop of 
Alexandria, for an explanation of the fact that in the year 387, the 
Romans kept Easter on March 21, whereas the Alexandrians did not 
keep theirs till five weeks later, that is not till April 25. Theophilus 
explained to him the principles of the Alexandrian computation. 
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan sided with the Alexandrian computation 
(456). ‘That makes against the story of the alleged Prologue of 
Cyril, that Rome announced Pask to all the world after receiving it 


po Ξ 9 6 --- - ---ς-------------------- 


(456), Hefele 1., 329. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Genuine Utterances. 291 


from Alexandria. Hefele goes on to state that ‘“‘Cyril’’ of Alexan- 
dria ‘‘showed in a letter to the Pope, what was defective in the Latin 
Calculation; and this demonstration was taken up again, some time 
after, by order of the Emperor, by Paschasinus, Bishop of Lily- 
baeum and Proterius of Alexandria, in a letter written by them to 
Pope LeoI. In consequence of these communications, Pope Leo often 
gave the preference to the Alexandrian computation, instead of that 
of the Church of Rome’’ (457). Finally, after different attempts 
to make the Roman and the Alexandrian reckonings of Easter agree, 
it was accomplished by Dionysius the Little, a monk of Rome, in 
the sixth century, and in the reign of Charlemagne, that is Charles 
the Great, who died A. D. 814, his Calculations were accepted by all 
the West, and so harmony on the date of Easter was assured, after 
long and vexations differences. It is to be regretted that we have 
lost the exact form of the edict of Nicaea, which made the Bishop of 
Alexandria the Computer of the time of Pask for the Universal 
Church. The fact, however, that it did so is incontestibly proven. 

Valuable references as to the disputes among those who were 
not Quartodecimans, but adhered to Nicaea, but nevertheless had 
different ways of computing Pask Lord’s Day, are as follows: 

(A.) Hefele, on pages 298-341, of Volume I. of his Azstory of 
the Christian Councils, treats learnedly of the Decision of Nicaea on 
Easter, and of the differences before and since on that point. 


(B.) Much of the Originals to which he refers may be found in 
tome 54 of Migne’s Patrologia Latina, Index under ‘‘ Paschalis dies.’’ 


(C.) The authorities as to the difference between the British 
Churches and Augustine, the Roman missionary to the Saxons, at 
the end of the sixth century, and in the seventh, as to the particular 
Lord’s Day on which the Paschal Festival should fall, are given in 
Smith’s Gieseler’s Church History, Volume I., page 530, note 4. 
Compare also page 531, note 8. Gieseler there shows that the 
Britons were not Quartodecimans, as has sometimes been ignorantly 
supposed, but always kept Easter on a Lord’s Day, but followed an 
old and antiquated and erroneous table to compute it. 


We see then, (to sum up), that the first Ecumenical Council 
decided 1, that the Pask must always fall on a Lord’s Day, the joyful 
Festival on the joyful day; and 2, that it must not be celebrated 


(457). Ibid. 


292 Chapter ΚΔ 


a 


on the same day as the Jewish Passover, hence not on the Fourteenth 
day of Nisan. ‘These points are gleaned from the Synodal Letter of 
the Council and from the Emperor Constantine’s Letter on the sub- 
ject (458). 

That became the universal custom. A few in Asia would not 
however receive it, but split off from the church and were called 
Quartodecimans, that is Fourteenthdayites. A few small sects also 
opposed the Council’s Decision. The Ebionites had been Quarto- 
decimans because they believed in the perpetual obligation of the 
Mosaic Law. ᾽ 
Disappearance of the setts which opposed the Nicene Decision on Easter. 

Folly of the difference between the Greeks and Latins on it in 

our day. 

The Novatian sect rose in the Roman or Italian Church in the 
third century; and at first, as Sozomen tells us, kept the Paschal 
Festival at the time the Roman Church did (459), which custom they 
and the Romans seem to have claimed to be from the Apostles Peter 
and Paul. Afterwards, about A. D. 375, some of them in the East, 
under the lead of Sabbatius and others, began to keep it on the same 
day as the Jews (460). ‘That appears to have been one thing that 
led him to split off from them. ‘The Montanists, in the fourth cen- 
tury at least, followed in the main, the Jewish against the Christian 
Paschal custom (461). Yet Sozomen shows that the Quartodecimans 
differed both from the Fourtenth Day wing of the Novatians and 
from the Montanists, in that they always kept their Pask on the Four- 
teenth Day, whereas those Novatians and the Montanists in certain 
cases did not; through when they did not, they still varied as to the 
time of its observance from each other. However, all the Fourteeth 
Day sects soon died out, and the Nicene usage became universal. In 
later times, after the separation of East and West, and the adoption 
of the Gregorian Calendar, as the Easterns still continued, unwisely, 
to refuse to do a little mathematical work and to correct their Old 


(458). See the Synodal Letter above, and the quotation from the Emperor’s 
Letter in Hefele I., pages 322-324. 

(459). Sozomen’s Eccl. Hist. Book VI., Chapter 24, page 279 of Bohn’s 
English translation. 

(460). Sozomen’s Εἰ επί. Hist., ibid, and book VII., Chapter 18. 


(461). Ibid. 


Nicea, A. 20. 325: Its Genuine Utterances. 293 
Style, and as the Westerns did, the Latins first, and the Protestants 
afterwards, a difference of twelve days was made in their time anda 
difference also as to the day of keeping Pask. ‘This useless and silly 
difference should be done away and all should strictly follow the Nicene 
rule. If there be differences as to the exact Lord’s Day when it should 
be kept, that is a mathematical question, and fairness and good feeling 
should settle it in a few hours. Otherwise we can not expect a universal 
observance of the same Paschal day till the Seventh Ecumenical Synod 
meets. The absurdity of adhering to a style which all parties, East 
and West, admit to be twelve days behind the right time, and the 
folly of failing to see that it is not a question of Theology, but of 
mathematical science, are too clear to need discussion. If the papers 
can be trusted, Russia at least has lately had the common sense to 
decree that in civil matters at least, the new and correct computation 
of time shall be observed in its dominion. 


(D.) Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, who had led in Christ’s 
battle against the creature-serving Arius and his partisans, and had 
excommunicated them as duty demanded, and so made the whole 
heretical party in Alexandria and elsewhere his bitter enemies, is 
vindicated and commended. 


294 Chapter V7. 


THE SYNODAL EPISTLE. 


Τῇ ἀγίᾳ Θεοῦ χάριτι, χαὶ μεγάλῃ ᾿Αλεξανδρέων ἐχχλησίᾳ, καὶ τοῖς χατ’ 
Αἴγυπτον, χαὶ Λιβύην χαί Πἰεντάπολιν ἀγαπητοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, of ἐν Διχαίᾳ συναχ- 
« ΗΕ ΤῊΝ LAU G ODDO OL a ene ere per 
θέντες, χαὶ τὴν μεγάλην χαὶ ἁγίαν σύνοδον συγχροτήσαντες ἐπίσχοποι, ἐν Κυρίῳ 


χαίρειν. 


᾿Επειδὴ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ γάριτος, χαὶ τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου βασιλέως Λωνσταν- 
τίνου συναγαγόντος ὑμᾶς ἐχ διαφόρων πόλεών τε χαῖ ἐπαρχιῶν, μεγάλη καὶ ἁγία 


σύνοδος ἐν Nexata συνεχρυτήθη, ἐξ ἁπαντὸς ἀναγχαῖον ἐφάνη, παρὰ τῆς ἱερὰς 


συνόδου χαὶ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐπιστεῖλαι γράμματα" ἵν᾽ εἰδέναι ἔχοιτε τίνα μὲν ἐχινήθη, 
΄ ΄ » Ν ΄ - τ ἢ Ξ- - 
χαὶ ἐξητάσθη, τίνα δὲ ἔδοξε χαὶ ἐχρατύνθη. Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἐξ ἁπάντων ἐξητάσθη 


τὰ χατὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν χαὶ τὴν παρανυμίαν Apstov χαὶ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ, ἐπὶ παρουσίᾳ 


\yva fe 


τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου βασιλέως Κωνσταντίνου" zat παμφηφεὶ ἔδοξεν eS 


τὴν ἀσεβῆ αὑτοῦ δόξαν, χαὶ τὰ ῥήματα χαὶ τὰ ὀνόματα τὰ βλάσφημα, οἷς ἐχέχρητ 


[τὴ Shas ) 


abe Ξ 
“ἐξ οὐχ ὄντων,᾽ χαὶ “εἶναι ποτὲ ὅτε οὐχ Hy,’ χαὶ 


βλασφημῶν, τὸν ΥἹὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἘΝ 
(44 > Ris pene pes pa ae = <a ον Vib = Oz ~~) )2 yhby 
αὐτεξυυσιότητι χαχίας χαὶ ἀρετῆς δεχτιχὸν τὸν Yidy tod Θεοῦ" λέγοντος, καὶ “χτίσμα" 


xa “᾿ποίημα᾽᾽ ὀνομάξοντυς, ἅπαντα ταῦτα ἀνεθεμάτισεν ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος, οὐδὲ ὅσον 


ἀχοῦσαι τῆς ἀσεβοῦς δόξης ἢ ἀπονοίας, χαὶ τῶν βλασφήμων ῥημάτων, ἀνασχομένη. 
Kat τὰ μὲν χατ᾽ ἐχεῖνον οἵου τέλους τετύχηχε, πάντως ἣ ἀχηχόατε ἣ ἀχούσεσθε, 


Ἂ ΄ "» ΄ vm AY > 
ἵνα μὴ δόξωμεν ἐπεμβαίνειν ἀνδρὶ δὶ οἰχείαν ἁμαρτίαν ἄξια τὰ ἐπίχειρα χομι- 


Lt qh > δὲ beeen ἣν 2) enewn ΠΡ 5 Lf. δ Nate Bedi) ὦ Oe ~ SEN 
σαμένῳ. ἽἼυοσοῦτον δὲ ἴσχυσε αὐτοῦ ἡ ἀσέξύεια, ὡς xar heen εωνᾶν ἀπὸ 
Παρμαριχῆς, χαὶ Σεχοῦνδον ἀπὸ Πτολεμαΐδος" τῶν γὰρ αὐτῶν χκαχεῖνο: τετυχήχασιν. 


> 
AAR ἐπειδὴ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάρις τῆς μὲν χαχυδυξίας ἐχεί 
λασφημίας, χαὶ τῶν πρυσώπων τῶν τυλμησάντωο διάστασιν χαὶ διαίρεσιν ποιὴ- 
ἡ ) f ἢ f 
~ 3 Ὑ ~ 
σασθαι τοῦ εἰρηνευυμένου ἄνωθεν λαοῦ, ἠλευθέρωσεν ὑμᾶς, ἐλείπετο δὲ τὸ χατὰ 


c 


τὴν προπέτειαν Mehiziov, xat τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ΡΣ. ντων" χαὶ περὶ τούτου τοῦ 
μέρους ἃ ἔδοξε τῇ συνόδῳ, ἐμφανίξομεν ὁμῖ: 


΄ SY 
ν ἀγαπητοὶ ἀδελφοί. ” Edo0zev Ovy 


y) 
, \ , , ΡΝ δ \ \ \ Se ee ΞΕ 
Πελίτιον μὲν, φιλανθρωπότερον χινηθείσης τὴς συνόδου͵ ----χατὰ yap τὸν ἀχριβὴ 
A Εν ΠΑ σαν Pm Stay Rly Se eS YS νον ΟΣ = ee eS gs 
λόγον οὐδεμιᾶς συγγνώμης ἄξιος ἦν, ---ομένειν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἑαυτοῦ, χαὶ μηδεμίαν 
ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν αὐτὸν μήτε χειροθετεῖν, μήτε προχειρίζεσθαι, μήτε ἐν χώρᾳ μήτε 
ἐν πόλει ἑτέρᾳ φαίνεσθαι, ταύτης τῆς προφάσεως ἕνεχα" ψιλὸν δὲ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς 


τιμῆς χεχτῆσθαι. Todg δὲ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ χατασταθέντας, μυστιχωτέρᾳ χειροτονίᾳ 


΄ a bl > ‘\ . x 
ἐπὶ τούτοις, ἐφ᾽ ᾧτε ἔχειν μὲν αὐτοὺς τὴν τιμὴν καὶ 


βεβαιωθέντας χοινωνῆσαι 
λειτουργίαν, δευτέρους δὲ εἶναι ἐξάπαντος πάντων τῶν ἐν ἑχάστῃ παροιχίᾳ τὲ χαὶ 
ἐχχλησίᾳ ἐξεταζομένων, τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ τιμιωτάτου χαὶ συλλειτουργοῦ ὑμῶν ᾽Αλεξ. 
ἄάνδρου προχεχειρισμένων" ὥστε τούτοις μηδεμίαν ἐξουσίαν εἶναι τοὺς ἀρέσχοντας 

> ~ ibd c ΄ 5 , “ἈΝ σ - Ν 4 ~ 
αὐτοῖς προχειρίξεσθαι, ἢ ὑποβάλλειν ὀνόματα ἢ ὅλως ποιεῖν τε χωρὶς γνώμης τῶν 


τῆς χαθολιχῆς ἐχχλησίας ἐπισχόπων, τῶν ὑπὸ ᾿Αλέξανδρον, Τοὺς δὲ γάριτι θεοῦ 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Its Genuine Utterances. 295 


Notre.—In the document here following, I translate from Hus- 
sey’s text as given by Professor Bright in his edition of Socrates, 
pages 20 and 21. My impression is, however, that Theodoret’s. text 
in his #eclestastical History, Book I., Chapter VIII., is sometimes 
preferable to it in places where they differ. I will therefore refer to 
the principal differences between them in notes. 


TRANSLATION OF THE SYNODAL EPISTLE 


Of the First Ecumenical Council, held A. D. 325, at Nicaea in 
Bithynia, to the Church of Alexandria. 


“To the Church of the Alexandrians, by God’s grace, holy and 
great, and to the beloved brethren in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, 
the Bishops who have been assembled in Nicaea, and who have cele- 
brated the Great and Holy Synod, wish joy in the Lord. 


Forasmuch as God’s grace, and the most dear to God Emperor 
Constantine, have assembled us out of different cities and provinces, 
and a Great and Holy Council hath been celebrated in Nicaea, it 
‘seemed by all means necessary to send a Letter to you also from the 
Sacred Synod, in order that ye may be able to know what things 
have been agitated and inquired into, and what things have seemed 
‘good and have been established. 


First, then, the matters relating to the impiety and the lawless- 
ness of Arius and of his partisans have been inquired into by all in 
the presence of the most dear to God Emperor Constantine, and by 
the votes of all it hath been decreed that his impious opinion is to be 
anathematized and the blasphemous expressions (462) and names 


(462). The ‘‘dlasphemous expressions”? especially referred to, are evidently 
those anathematized in the Nicene Creed, such as are specified further on. in. the 
above Epistle, such as, 


1. “ The Son of God was made out of things not existing.”’ 

2. ‘‘Before He was born He was not.’ 

3. ‘‘ There was once when He was not.” 

4. “ The Son of God ts capable of vice.’ 

In this Epistle, as in Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History, Book 1... Chapter 
VIII., we find expression 2 above. It is not in Socrates. 


Yet I suppose the reference is to all the blasphemous language used by 
‘Arius, who came before the Bishops of the Council and vented his impieties. 


296 Chapter V1. 


χαὶ εὐχαῖς ὑμετέραις ἐν μηδενὶ σχίσματι εὑρεθέντας, ἀλλὰ ἀκηλιδώτους ἐν τῇ 
Μαθολικῇ ᾿Εχκλησίᾳ ὄντας, καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν προχειρίξεσθαι, καὶ ὀνόματα ἐπιλέγ- 
εσθαι τῶν ἀξίων τοῦ χλήρου, καὶ ὅλως πάντα ποιεῖν χατὰ νόμον χαὶ θεσμὸν τὸν 
ἐχχλησιαστιχόν. Ei δέ twas συμβαίη ἀναπαύσασθαι τῶν ἐν τῇ ᾿Εχκλησίᾳ, τηνιχαῦτα 
προσαναβαΐνειν εἰς τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ τετελευτηχότος τοὺς ἄρτι προσληφθέντας, μόνον 
εἰ ἄξιοι φαίνοιντο, xat 6 λαὸς αἱροῖτο, συνεπιφηφίξζοντος αὐτῷ καὶ ἐπισφραγίξο- 
yrog τοῦ τῆς ᾿Αλεξανδρείας ἐπισχόπου. Τοῦτο δὲ τοῖς μὲν ἄλλοις πᾶσι συνεχω- 
ρήθη" ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ Medetiov προσώπου οὐχέτι τὰ αὐτὰ ἔδοξε, διὰ τὴν ἀνέχαθεν 
αὐτοῦ ἀταξίαν, καὶ διὰ τὸ πρόχειρον καὶ προπετὲς τῆς γνώμης, ἵνα μηδεμία 
ἐξουσία ἢ αὐθεντία αὐτῷ δοθείη, ἀνθρώπῳ δυναμένῳ πάλιν τὰς αὐτὰς ἀταξίας 
ἐμποιῆσαι. Ταῦτα ἐστὶ τὰ ἐξαίρετα χαὶ διαφέροντα Αἰγύπτῳ, καὶ τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ 
᾿ἀλεξανδρέων ἐχχλησία. 

Εἰ δέ τι ἄλλο ἐκανονίσθη ἢ ἐδυγματίσθη, συμπαρόντος τοῦ χυρίου καὶ τιμεωτάτου 
συλλειτουργοῦ καὶ ἀδελφοῦ ἡμῶν λεξάνδρου, αὐτὸς παρὼν ἀχριβέστερον ἀνοίσει πρὸς 
ὁμᾶς, ἅτε δὴ καὶ χύριος καὶ χοινωνὸς τῶν γεγενημένων τυγχάνων. Edayyedtlopeda 
δὲ ὑμῖν, περὶ τῆς συμφωνίας τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου Πάσχα, bre ὑμετέραις εὐχαῖς χατωρ- 
θώθη χαὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος" ὥς τε πάντας τοὺς ἐν τῇ ξῴᾳ ἀδελφοὺς, τοὺς μετὰ τῶν 
Ιουδαίων τὸ πρότερον ποιοῦντας, συμφώνως “Ρωμαίοις χαὶ ἡμῖν, καὶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν 
τοῖς ἐξ ἀρχαίου μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν φυλάττουσι τὸ Πάσχα, ἐκ τοῦ δεῦρο ἄγειν. Δαίροντες 
οὖν ἐπὶ τοῖς χατορθώμασι, καὶ τῇ τῆς εἰρήνης συμφωνέᾳ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ πᾶσαν αἵρεσιν 
ἐχχοπῆναι, ἀποδέξασθε μὲν μετὰ μείζονος τιμῆς καὶ πλείονος ἀγάπης τὸν συλλειτ- 
ουργὸν ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν δὲ ἐπίσκοπον ᾿Αλέξανδρον, τὸν εὐφράναντα ἡμᾶς ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ, 
χαὶ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἡλιχίᾳ τοσοῦτον πόνον ὑποστάντα ὑπὲρ τοῦ εἰρήνην γενέσθαι καὶ 
παρ᾽ ὑμῖν. Εὔχεσθε δὲ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁπάντων, ἵνα τὰ χαλῶς ἔχειν δόξαντα, ταῦτα 
βέβαια μένῃ, διὰ τοῦ παντοχράτορος Θεοῦ, καὶ διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Πησοῦ Χρισ- 
τοῦ, σὺν “Αγίῳ Πνεύματι" ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας" ἀμήν. 

There are some various readings of the above Epistle in Migne’s 
Socrates and in his Theodoret ; but for the most part they make no 
great difference in the sense. The most important of them are 
mentioned in the notes to the English translation below. The differ- 
ence in the last sentence involves the important point of the inspiration 
of the Council by the Holy Ghost, and its consequent infallibility; and 
leads us to question whether the full form given by Theodoret is not 
the original, and whether Socrates, (as a Novation ?) did not omit the 
allusion to the inspiration of the Council, because to admit it as 
inspired would be to admit that its condemnation of the Novations, 
that is the Cathari, is just. Still, we do not undertake to give an 
opinion on those matters. See the last sentence in both the trans- 
lations here given of the above Greek. 


bo | 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Genuine Utterances. 29 


(463) which he had used in blaspheming, by saying that ‘‘¢he Son of 
God was made out of things not existing (464),’’ and that there was 
once when he was not,’ and that ‘‘the Son of God by the freedom of his 
own will ts capable of vice and of virtue,’ and in calling him ‘a creature’ 
and ‘a work: 

All these things the Holy Synod has anathematized, not endur- 
ing so much as to hear the impious opinion or madness and the 
blasphemous words. And the matters in relation to him have been 
so concluded as ye have certainly heard or will hear, in order that we 
may not seem to trample on a man who has received the rewards due 
to his own sin. But his impiety was so powerful as to ruin also 
Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais. For they also 
have received the same rewards. 


But forasmuch as the grace of God hath freed us from that evil 
opinion and impiety, and from the blasphemy and the persons of 
those who have dared to make division and separation amongst the 
people who before had lived in peace; and [forasmuch as] the matters 
relating to the rashness of Meletius and of those ordained by him yet 
remained, we hereby inform you, beloved brethren, of the things 
which have seemed good to the Synod in regard to him also. The 
Holy Synod then, being disposed to deal gently with Meletius, (though 
in strict justice he was deserving of no indulgence), hath decreed that 
he remain in his own city, and that he have no permission to lay on. 
hands, or to appoint any one [to any ecclesiastical office], or to appear 
in the country or in any other city on that pretext, but that he have only 
the bare title of [the episcopal] honor. And in regard to those who have 
been appointed by him, we have decreed that they, after being made sure 
by a more mystic ordination, (465) shall be admitted to communion 


(463). ‘Theodoret has here ‘“‘¢houghts,’”’ instead of ‘‘xames.”’ 

The zames referred to in Socrates’ form of the Letter certainly include, 
especially the names, ‘‘creature’’ and “‘ work” applied by the Arians to Christ’s 
Divinity. 

(464). That is ‘sade out of nothing,” as opposed to the saying of the 
Orthodox, that He was wzmade and eternal in the Father, as a Part of the 
Divinity, but was born out of Him ‘‘defore all the worlds,’’ as the Creed of the 
Second Ecumenical Synod has it. 

(465). Or, ‘‘more regular ordination, or ‘‘an ordination more sacra- 
mental.’ ‘She Greek here is, μυστικωτέρᾳ χειροτονίᾳ. ‘The Greek word for sacra- 
ment is, μυστήριον, that is ‘“‘mystery.’? In the early church in times of persecu- 


298 Chapter VI. 


on the following terms: they shall have both the honor and the power 
of ministering, but shall by all means be second to those found in 
each Paroecia (466) and Church to have been before appointed by the 
most honorable, our fellow-minister Alexander: so that they shall 
have no authority to appoint [to any clerical office] such persons as 
please them, or to suggest their names, or to do anything at all with- 
out the consent of the Bishops of the Universal Church who are under 
Alexander. But those who, by God’s grace and by your prayers, 
have been discovered in no schism, but are without stain in the Uni- 
versal Church, shall have authority both to appoint [clerics] and to 
suggest the names of those who are worthy of the clericate, and in 
short to do all things agreeable to Church law and custom. But if 
it should happen that any of the clergy of the church should go to 
their rest, then those [Meletian clergy] who have just been admitted [in 
this enactment] shall succeed to the honor of the one who has finished 
his course, provided only they appear worthy, and the people take 
them, and the Bishop of Alexandria (467) gives them his vote also, 
and puts his seal [on their nomination]. So muchas this then has been 
granted to all the others [of the Meletian clergy]. 


But in regard to the person of Meletius [himself], on account of 
his former disorderly conduct and on account of the levity and rash- 
ness of his disposition, the same things have not been decreed; in 
order that no authority or personal power should be given to him, 
a man capable of creating the same disorders again. 


These are the chief things and those which relate especially to 
Egypt and the most holy Church of the Alexandrians. But if any 
thing else has been enacted in the form of canon or of dogma, the 
Lord and most honorable fellow-minister our brother Alexander who 
himself was present with us will himself report them to you more in 
detail, inasmuch as he was both a Master and a sharer in the things 
which have been done. 


tion Christian rites were generally secret. There is no definition of the whole 
church, as to what a sacrament is; nor as to exactly how many there are. The 
word may from its meaning, ‘‘Sacred Rite,’’ be applied to any New Testament 
Rite. 

(466). Greek, παροικίᾳ, that is, what we call a diocese now. 

(467). Theodoret has, “the Bishop of the Universal Church at Alexan- 
dria.’ 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Genuine Uticrances. 298 


Moreover, we announce to you the glad tidings in regard to our 
agreement respecting the most holy Pask [Easter] that, by your prayers, 
that particular also has been rightly settled, and that all the brethren 
in the East, who formerly kept the feast with the Jews, will for the 
future keep it in harmony with the Romans, and with us, and with 
all those who from ancient time keep the Pask [Easter] with us. 
Rejoicing therefore at the rightings (468) and at the peace and agree- 
ment, and at the cutting off of every heresy, receive ye with greater 
honor and more love our fellow-minister, your Bishop Alexander, 
who gladdened us by his presence, and who has undergone so much 
labor at such an age for the purpose of making peace among you also. 


But pray also for all of us, that those things which have seemed 
good may remain firm through the Almighty God and through our 
Lord Jesus Christ, together with the Holy Ghost, (469) to whom be 
the glory for ever: Amen (470). 


In some respects, notably as to the end, I prefer the form of the 
Synodal Epistle as found in Theodoret. Here it is: 


THE SYNODICAL EPISTLE 


Of the First Ecumenical Council, held A. D. 325, in Nicaea in 
Bithynia, to the Alexandrian Church, translated from Chapter VIII., 
Book I., of Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History, (columns 927-932 of 
tome 82 of Migne’s Patrologia Gracea). 


“ΤῸ the holy and great, by God’s grace, Church of the Alexan- 
drians, and to the beloved brethren in Egypt and Libya and Pentap- 
olis the Bishops who have been assembled in Nicaea, and who have 
celebrated the great and holy Synod, wish joy in the Lord. 


Forasmuch as the grace of God, and the most dear to God Em- 
peror Constantine have gathered us from different provinces and cities, 
and the great and holy Synod has been celebrated, it seemed necessary 
that a letter should be sent to you also from all the sacred Synod, in 
order that you may be able to know what matters have been agitated 


Lay (468). Greek, τοῖς κατορθώμασι. 

(469). ‘Theodoret’s text has here, “may remain firm, through our Lord 
Jesus Christ, for they have been done, as at least we have believed, according to 
the good pleasure of the Almighty God and Father in the Holy Spirit, to whom 
be the glory forever, Amen.”’ 

(470). Bright’s Socrates’ Lcclestastical History, Book I., Chapter IX, 
(pages 20 and 21). 


300 Chapter VI. 


Se eee ee eee eS ee 


and inquired into, and what have seemed good and have been 
established. 

First, then, the matters in regard to the impiety and the lawless- 
ness of Arius have been inquired into before our most dear to God 
Emperor Constantine, and, by a unanimous vote, it seemed good to 
anathematize his impious opinion, and his blasphemous expressions. 
and thoughts, which he used when blaspheming the Son of God, by 
saying, ‘He was made out of things not existing,’ and, ‘Before he was 
born he was not,’ and ‘There was once when he was not,’ and ‘ The Son 
of God, by his own free will ἐς receptive of vice and of virtue,’ and his 
naming him ‘a creature’ and ‘a work.’ All those things the Holy 
Synod anathematized, not enduring so much as to hear his impious. 
opinion, and senselessness, and his blasphemous expressions. 

And the matters in regard.to him have been so ended, as ye 
have fully heard or will hear: [we say no more] lest we may seem to 
trample upon a man, who has received due rewards on account of his. 
own sin. But his impiety had so much streagth as to ruin besides 
T’heonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais: for these two also 
have received the same rewards. 

But inasmuch as the grace of God freed Egypt from that wicked 
opinion, and from the blasphemy, and the persons of those who dared 
to make a dissension and a division among a people before at peace, 
there remained the matters in regard to the rashness of Meletius and 
of those ordained by him: and, beloved brethren, we hereby show 
you the things which seemed good to the Synod concerning that 
matter. 

It seemed good therefore, forasmuch as the Holy Synod was 
moved to deal kindly towards him, (although in strict justice he was 
unworthy of any pardon), [we mean Meletius], that he remain in his 
own city, and have no authofity, either to ordain, or to promote 
[any one], or to lay on hands, or to appear in the country, or in any 
city for that purpose; but to possess [only] the mere name of the 
honor [of the episcopate]. Moreover, those who were settled [as 
clergy] by him, when they shall have been made sure by a more mys- 
tic ordination, μυστιχωτέρᾳ χειροτονίᾳ shall be received into communion 
on the following terms: They shall have the honor which they now 
have, and shall minister, but shall by all means be in a secondary 


Nicéa, A. D. 325: δὲς Genuine Utterances. 301 


are found to have been ordained before by our most honored fellow- 
minister, Alexander; so that those [Meletians] shall have no authority 
to promote those who are pleasing to them, or to suggest a name [of 
any one for the ministry], or to do anything at all without the con- 
sent of the Bishops of the Universal and Apostolic Church, who are 
under Alexander. 


But those who by God’s grace and by your prayers, have been 
found in no schism, but are without spot in the Universal and 
Apostolic Church, shall have authority both to elect [clergy], and to 
suggest names of those who are worthy of the clericate, and in short 
to do all things which are in accordance with Church Law and usage. 
Moreover, if, at any time it shall happen, that any one of those who 
are in the church, shall go to his rest, then some one of those now 
received shall be promoted to the honor of the one who has finished 
his course, provided only he seem to be worthy, and the people 
choose him, and the Bishop of the Universal Church in Alexandria, 
also give his vote for him, and set his seal upon the election. 


That [much] has been conceded to all the others [the followers of 
Meletius]: but, as regards the person of Meletius himself, it did not 
seem good to grant him the same things longer, on account of his 
disorderliness before, and because of the hastiness and rashness of his 
judgment, that no authority nor power may be given to him, a 
man capable of making the same disorders again. 


These are the things and those which especially pertain to 
Egypt and to the most Holy Church of the Alexandrians. And 
whatsoever else has been enacted in the shape of canon, or of doc- 
trine, the Lord and most honored fellow-minister, our brother Alex- 
ander, who was present, will himself relate it to you more in detail, 
inasmuch as he was both a master and a sharer in the things which 
have been done. 


We also announce to you glad tidingsin regard to the agreement 
respecting our most holy Pask, that by your prayers this matter also 
has been rightly settled, so that all the brethren of the East who 
aforetime did not keep it in agreement with the Romans, (471) and 


(471). The readings of the Greek here are quite various. Our translation 
above is made from Migne’s Theodoret. And the text of Socrates and that of 
~Coleti’s Concilia differ so much that one is compelled to choose between them. 


302 Chapter VT. 


with you and with all who kept the Pask, will from henceforth keep it: 
with you. 
Rejoicing therefore for these settings right, and for the common 


Another reading for the above passage is as follows: 


‘So that all the brethren in the East, who fearlessly kept it aforetime with 
the Jews, will from henceforth keep it in harmony, with the Romans and with 
us, and with all those who from the beginning keep the Pask with us.”’ 

There are still other readings of parts of the above. 

If we accept ‘‘fearlessly”’ or ‘‘intrepidly”’ and the reading in the text above 
as the true one, then some may possibly fancy that the First Ecumenical Synod will 
seem to have eulogized those who intrepidly withstood the Roman attempts to 
enforce their custom on the Quartodecimans of Asia, which was successfully 
opposed at that time, and for which attempt, as Eusebius testifies, Irenaeus 
Bishop of Lyons, so nobly attacked Victor, Bishop of Rome. See Eusebius’ 
Ecclesiastical History, Book V., Chapters XXIII., XXIV. and XXV. Whether if” 
it were the true reading, which I doubt, other causes, among them opposition to 
the Quartodecimans who refused to follow the decision of the Council on this 
matter, had not something to do with the other reading given in the text, we 
leave the learned to judge. 

Or was the ‘‘zz¢repidly’’ which is found in Basil, omitted in some manu- 
scripts because some ignorant transcribers knew nothing of the intrepid resist- 
ance by these brethren of the East to attempted Papaltyranny? Still as it isnot 
edited in any text and as it is not proven to be the corre¢t lection, it is not wise 
to rely on it as sure. 

Still another reading is as follows: 

‘‘So that all the brethren of the East, who kept it with the Jews, and afore- 
time intrepidly refused to keep it in agreement with the Romans, and with you, 
and with all who kept the Passover with you from the beginning, will from 
henceforth keep it with you.’’ Other readings may be given. 

The Greek is found in Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter IX.; 
in Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter VIII., and in tome 2 of 
Coleti’s Concilia, columns 260-264. The Greek in Coleti, asjust referred to, is 
from Gelasius of Cyzicus’ Arrangement of the Ads of the Synod in Nicaea, Book 
II., Chapter XXXIII. The reading ‘‘adéwc, txtrepide, Basil, Gr.,’’? is found in 
note 50, column 931, tome 82, of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. 

But adéwc, may well be rendered ‘‘ without fear,’’ and then the commenda- 
tion on their intrepidity disappears. I do not by any means feel sure that the 
Council meant to compliment the Quartodeciman Churches for opposing the 
common custom on Pask of the great bulk of the Church, though they would, 
of course, deny the right of the Bishop of Rome to excommunicate them with- 
out an Ecumenical Council. 

The various lections of this Synodal Epistle will be found under it in 
Migne’s Socrates and in Migne’s Theodoret. 


Nicea, A. D. 325: Its Genuine Utterances. 303 


peace and harmony, and for the cutting off of every heresy, receive 
with greater honor and with more love, our fellow-minister, your 
Bishop Alexander, who cheered us by his presence, and even at his. 
time of life endured so much toil to settle your affairs in peace. 

And pray for us ail, that the things which have seemed good 
may remain firm, through our Lord Jesus Anointed, for they have 
been done, as at least we have believed, according to the good pleasure 
of the Almighty God and Father in the Holy Spirit, to whom be the 
glory forever. Amen.”’ 

According to Socrates’ Lcclestastical History, Book I., Chapter 
VIII., end, the Synodal Epistle of the First Ecumenical Council was 
passed by a common vote of all of it: for Socrates there writes: 

‘‘And by a common vote (χοινῇ φηήφῳ) the Synod wrote as follows 
to the Church of the Alexandrians, and to those in Egypt and Libya 
and Pentapolis.”’ 


Then he gives at once the Conciliar Epistle of Nicaea. 


HE) 


2 


seas 


BOL Chapter VII. 


NIC AGA) A, Das Aa: 


THE FIRST, ECUMENICAL ΘΟ ΘΕ 


CHAPTER (VEL 


Its SYMBOL, THAT IS, ITS CREED. 


We propose here: 

1. Zo give the Greck text of the Nicene Creed and an English 
translation of tt side by side. 

>. To note the Variations in the Greek text of the Nicene Creed 
and in the Latin translations of 17. 

3. To speak of Gelasius of Cyzicus, and of his work on the Nicene 
Council and to show tts unretiability. 


‘To consider: 


4. Whether any DECLARATIVE CREED preceded the Nicene. 


5. Whether any author of a date anterior to Nicaea, A. Bee eae 
gives any such Creed. 


6. To examine whether the Creed of the 318 is an amplification of 
the Western local Creed which is now commonly called the 
Apostles. 


To examine the claim of Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, that 
in his Profession of Faith offered at Nicaea, he furnished 
the First Ecumenical Council, the basis of the Nicene Creed, 
and to consider in this conneétion the opinion of Valesius, 
that Eusebius Profession ts the same as an Arian document 
which, Theodoret testifies, the Fathers of the Council tore up. 


ὩΣ 


Nicaea, AD, 325: Its Creed: 305 


8. 70 ask what facts have reached us, as to who was most a€tive 
at Nicaea for the expression ‘‘O¥ THE SAME SUBSTANCE,’ 
(ὁμοούσιον), and against Arian Creature Service. 


9. Zo mention the most notable terms which are found in the CREED 
OF THE FrrstT ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, but are not in the 
PROFESSION OF Fairu presented by Eusebius of Caesarea, 
and to note the reason for them. 


10. Zo mention the chief things in Eusebius of Caesarea’ s PROFESS- 
ION OF Fartu which are not in the Nicene Creed, and to 
ask why they were omitted by the Fathers of the Council. 


11. Zoask, Who wrote the SYMBOL OF THE 318 OF NICAEA? 
12. Zo show the SCRIPTURALNESS of the Creed of Nicaea. 


13. On the inconsistent and hypocritical course of the Arian party 
in signing and afterwards rejecting those terms of the 
Nicene Creed which teach the Consubstantiality of the Son 
with the Father; and in pleading that they rejecied them 
because they are not in Scripture, while they used terms 
which are notin Scripture to express thetr heresy. 


SECTION 1.—THE GREEK TEXT OF THE NICENE CREED AND ITS 
ENGLISH TRANSLATION, SIDE BY SIDE. "THE CREED OF THE 
First ECuMENICAL CouNCIL; which is sometimes called the 
Nicene Creed, and sometimes that of the 318 Holy Fathers at 
Nicaea. 


It is the first of the only two Ecumenical Creeds, the other being that 
of the Second Ecumenical Council, which ἐς called that of the 750 Fathers 
of that Synod, because that was the number of bishops init. That 
Creed will be given when we come to the Second Ecumenical Synod. 
In the Fourth Ecumenical Council those Creeds were read separately, 
as being of two different Synods. But in later times a wrong custom 
has sprung up of calling the Constantinopolitan Creed the Nicene. 
It should never be done. The use of the terms employed of those 
Symbols in the Ecumenical Councils should be retained for exactness 
sake. 


THE GREEK TEXT OF THE NICENE 
CREED, 


From Eusebius of Caesarea’s 
Epistle to the Caesareans, as in 
Migne’s Patologia Graeca, tome 
20, column 1540: 


Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν Πατέρα 


΄ ΄ - τ 
TAYTOLPATONG, πάντων ὁρατῶν TE KA 


ἀυράτων ποιητήν" 


Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον ᾿]ησοῦν λρισ- 
τὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐχ 
τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν Ex τῆς 
οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὺς, θεὸν ἐκ Θευῦ, φῶς 
ἐχ φωτὸς͵ θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, 
γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμουύσιον τῷ 
Πατρί, 00 οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τά τε 
> ~ * ~ X\ ‘A 2 ~ τ \ ’ 
ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ χαὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ τὸν δι 

Π ͵ 4 “ | 
G OE) es See NYS Sr eee 
HUGS τοὺς Ge POZOVS και OLA THY μετε- 
pay σωτηρίαν χατελθόντα χαὶ σαρχω- 
θέντα, ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα, χαὶ 
Xs τάντ τῇ Torr reo ἃ: ελθό; Ti 
ἀναστάντα, TH τρίτη ἡμέρα, ἀνελθόντα 


ν 


5 > . ΣΕ ΛΗ a >, 
εἰς οὐρανοὺς, ZA ἐρχόμενον χριναι 


ζῶντας καὶ vexpods’ 
Καὶ εἰς τὸ “Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. 


Τυὺς δὲ λέγοντας, "Hv ποτε ὅτε οὐχ 
ἦν, καί, Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐχ ἦν, xar ὅτι 
"ES οὐχ ὄντων ἐγένετο, H ἐξ ἑτέρας 

/ ) if 
ὑποστάσεως ἣ οὐσίας φάσχυντας εἶναι, 
“~ XN ~ ἈΝ ~ Sy) \ ἊΝ 
ἢ χτιστὸν ἣ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν 
Yidv τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀναθεματίξει ἡ Καθολιχὴ 


᾿Εχχλησία. 


Chapter VIL 


THE GREEK TEXT OF THE NICENE 
CREED, 


From St. Athanasius’ £pzstle to 
the “mperor Jovian, as in 
Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 
26, column 817: 


Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν, Πατέρα 
παντυχράτυρα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε χαὶ 


ἀυράτων ποιητήν" 


γ᾿ > ° dla ~ 7 
Καὶ εἰς τὸν ἕνα Κύριον ᾿Ϊησοὺῦν Χρισ- 
τὸν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐχ 
τοῦ Π|Ὠατρὸς μονογενῆ. τουτέστιν ἐκ τῇ 
τ τρὸς μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν &x τῆς 
Σ ‘ ~ \ J \ 4 im ~ ~ 
οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὺς, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς 
ἐχ φωτὸς, Θεὺν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθι- 
- > 7 Υ 
νοῦ, γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμουύσ- 
~ a iy ΄ 
cov τῷ Πατρὶ, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, 
ἈΠ ΝΣ ΡΣ ΣΕ ΝΞ EERE 
τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ xat τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 
BY ΄ - Ν "» , 
tov OV ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους χαὶ διὰ 
ry γηετά ᾿ - ay —-)Aju- are 
τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν χατελθόντα, xat 
ἘΛΈΡ Θ ΡῈ ΤῊΝ, ἐπ EE ise ΤΕ 
σαρχωθέντα, ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα, 
δον Mes ie gr eb ion Ny, io 
χαὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, καὶ aveh- 
θόντα εὡς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, ἐρχόμενον 


χρῖναι ζῶντας χαὶ νεχρούς" 
Kat εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ “Ἅγιον. 


Τυὺς δὲ λέγοντας, "Hv ποτε͵ ὅτε οὐχ 
ἦν, nat, Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὖχ ἦν, καὶ 
ὅτι EF οὐχ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἣ ἐξ ἑτέρας 
ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσχοντας εἶναι, 
ἢ χτιστὸν, ἣ τρεπτὸν, ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν 
Yiov τοῦ Θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζεε 


ἡ Καθολικὴ χαὶ ᾿ἠποστολιχὴ ᾿Εχχλησία. 


The difference between Eusebius of Caesarea’s text of the Nicene 
Creed as given by Hahn on pages 78, 79 and 80, of his Bibliothek der 
Symbole, and Athanasius’ text as given in his Zpzséle to Jovian, column 
817, tome 26, of Migne’s Patrologia Latina, is merely verbal in a few 
places which do not affect the sense perceptibly, except that Athan- 
asius has ‘‘and Apostolic’? before ‘‘Church’”’ in the Anathema. I 


Nicaea,A. D. 325: Its Creed. 


vUT 


here give below an English translation of Eusebius of Caesarea’s text 
of it in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, and of St. Athanasius’ text of it 


in Migne also. 
comparison. 


THE NICENE CREED, 


As in Eusebius of Caesarea’s 
Epistle Zo zs flock, in column 
1540, tome 20 of Migne’s Patro- 
logia Graeca: 


“We believe in one God, the 
Father Almighty, Maker of all 
visible and [of all] invisible things. 

“And in one Lord Jesus An- 
ointed, the Son of God, born out 
of the Father, Sole-Born, that is 
out of the substance of the Father, 
God out of God, Light out of 
Light, real God out of real God, 
born, not made, of the same sub- 
stance as the Father, through 
whom all things were made, both 
these in the heaven and those in 
the earth, who for us men and for 
our salvation came down, and 
took on flesh, put on a man, suf- 
fered, and rose up on the third 
day, went up into the heavens, 
and cometh to judge the living 
and the dead. 

‘And [we believe] in the Holy 
Ghost. 

“And the Universal Church 
anathematizes those who say that 
There was once when the Son of 
God was not, and that He was xot 
before He was born, and that Fe 
was made out of things not exist- 
mg; or who assert that fe zs of 
another subststence or substance 
[than the Father], or that He was 
created, or is mutable or con- 
vertible,”’ 


I have placed them side by side for convenience of 


THE NICENE CREED, 


As in St. Athanasius’ “p7stle to 
the Emperor Jovian, in column 
817, tome 26, of Migne’s Patro- 
logia Graeca : 


‘“We believe in one God, the 
Father Almighty, Maker of all 
visible and [of all] invisible things. 

‘‘And in the one Lord Jesus 
Anointed, the Son of God, born 
out of the Father, Sole-Born, that 
is out of the substance of the 
Father, God out of God, Light 
out of Light, real God out of real 
God, born, not made, of the same 
substance as the Father, through 
whom all things were made, both 
those in the heaven and those on 
the earth, who for us men and for 
our salvation came down, and 
took on flesh, put on a man, suf- 
fered, and rose n> on the third 
day, and went up ito the heavens. 
He cometh to judge the lving 
and the dead. 


‘‘And [we believe] in the Holy 
Ghost. 


‘‘And as to those who say that 
There was once when the Son of 
God was not, and that 474 was not 
before He was born, and tat He 
was made out of things not extst- 
ing, or who assert that fe zs of 
another Subsistence or Substance 
[than the Father], orthat /7e was 
created, or is mutable, or convert- 
ble, the Universal and Apostolic 
Church anathematizes them.”’ 


308 Chapter VII. 


Remarks on the differences between the Greek of the Nicene Creed as in 
Eusebius of Caesarea, in Migne’s text, and that given by St. 
Athanasius in his Epistle to Jovian, in Migne. To be precise, 
these are as follows : 


1. The τὸν before Δύριον (that is the ‘‘ ¢he’’ before ‘‘ Lord’’) isin 
Athanasius, not in Eusebius, but a note on Athanasius’ “zstle to 
Jovian, column 818 of tome 26 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tells 
us that, ‘‘ /¢ ἧς absent from the Royal and from Theodoret.”’ 


2. Καὶ (that is ‘‘anrd’’) is not in Athanasius before ἐρχόμενον (that 
is ‘‘cometh’’). 


3. Instead of εἰς τὸ “Aytoy Πνεῦμα (that is “7 the Holy Ghost’’), 
Athanasius, asin his £fzstle to Jovian, in Migne’s edition, has εἰς τὸ 
5 5) 
Πνεῦμα τὸ “Aytov, Which, however, is the same in meaning. 


4. Migne’s Athanasius has here τούτους (‘‘these’’), which 
Eusebius has not. 


5. Walch, in lection 19, on pages 79 and 800f his Lzbliotheca 
Symbolica Vetus, states that Athanasius, in his “pzstle to Jovian, 
Socrates, Gelasius, Basil, Theodotus, Eutyches and the Council of 
Chalcedon have the Greek for ‘‘the Holy Catholic and Apostoli 
Church,’ Chalcedon having it twice: whereas Theodoret, in giving 
the Epistle of Eusebius of Caesarea fo the Caesareans, his Parecians, 
gives the Greek for ‘‘ the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God.” 


Dr. G. Ludwig Hahn gives Eusebius of Caesarea’s text of the 
Nicene Creed on pages 78, 79 and 80, of the second edition of the 
Bibliothek der Symbole, (Breslau, 1877). It differs only slightly, and 
in nothing that makes any great difference in sense, from the text of 
Eusebius as given by his father, Dr. August Hahn, in the first edition 
of that work, which was published at Breslau in A. D. 1842. The 
second edition gives exactly the same text of the Nicene Creed that we 
find in Eusebius of Caesarea’s /pistle to the Caesareans, in column 
1540 of tome 20 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. In conclusion, I 
would remark that the texts of Eusebius of Caesarea and of Athanasius, 
when the same, are generally to be preferred to any lection that differs 
from them. Where they differ, and they differ very little, the un- 
doubted Orthodoxy of St. Athanasius has led most to follow his read- 
ing, especially the words ‘‘and Apostolic’’ in the Anathema. 


ΣΙ A SIDS ΩΣ ΠΟΥ ΘΕΆ 300 


I would add that Migne’s text of Athanasius’ /fzstle to Jovian 
has in the Anathema γενηθῆναι that is ‘‘made’’ instead of γεννηθῆναι 
that is ‘‘generated.’’ But that is evidently a copyist’s or printer’s 
mistake, for the language, of Eusebius of Caesarea and of Athanasius 
himself, as both are elsewhere quoted in this volume, shows that 
γεννηθῆναι is meant. 

The Nicene Creed was read in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical 
Council, held at Ephesus A. Ὁ. 431. As in that Act, in Tome V. of 
the Royal Edition of the Councils, Paris, A. D. 1644, it differs from 
the same Creed as in St. Athanasius’ £p7st/e to Jovian, in column 
817, tome 26, of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, only as follows: 


1. It has not ‘‘the’’ before ‘‘onxe Lord Jesus Anointed.” 


‘ 


2. It kas not ‘‘doth’’ before ‘‘7z2 the heaven.’’ 


3. Like the form in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 20, column 
1540, above quoted, it has ‘‘zz’’ before ‘‘the earth,’ not ‘‘on the 
as in Athanasius. 


᾽) 


earth 


4. It has not ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘ went up.”’ 


‘ 


5. It omits ‘‘or created’’ in the Anathema. 


Otherwise it is exactly the same as the Nicene Creed in Athan- 
asius’ £pistle to Jovian as in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 26, 
column 817, as above. 

In the Royal Edition of the Church Councils, Tome VIII., Paris, 
A. D. 1644, on page 405, we find the Creed of Nicaea again. It was 
read publicly in Act II. of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod. It agrees 
with the form of that Creed in column 817, of tome 26, of Migne’s 
Patrologia Graeca in Athanasius’ /pistle to Jovian, with the following 
exceptions : 


1. It has not ‘‘zhe’’ before ‘‘ one Lord.” 


It has ‘‘z2’’ before ‘‘the earth.’ 


i) 


. It has ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘ put on a man.’ 


3 

4. It has ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘ went up.”’ 

5. It has ‘‘and again’’ before ‘‘ cometh.’ 
6 


. It has not ‘‘or created,’’ in the Anathema. 


These differences are evidently copyist’s errors somehow. 


310 Chapter VII, 


Yet in Act V., of the same Fourth Council, in its definition we 
find the unusual and peculiar form of the Nicene Creed which has se 
many additions from the Constantinopolitan of which Hahn speaks. 
See below in Section 2. It isin the same Tome VIII. of the Royal 
Edition, on pages 636, 637. On page 630 of the same tome we read, 
‘“ The things which follow are translated from Latin into Greek,” but 
I am not aware that the Definition is included among the /Azgs so 
translated. If it were we might suppose a corrupt Latin copy. Sol 
must confess my ignorance why the form of the Creed cf Nicaea in 
the Definition of Chalcedon differs so much from that in its Act 
Second. Certainly an old translation of that Definition into Latin 
gives the Nicene Creed in a form which is utterly without any 
additions fro:m the Coustantinopolitan. See it noted below. 


SECTION 2.—I]Ve here note the Variations in the Greek Text of the 
Nicene Creed, and in the Latin Translations of it - 

Christian ὟΝ. F. Walch, in his Bzbliotheca Symbolica Vetus (lem- 
goviae, A. D. 1770), pages 75-80, gives us the text of the Nicene 
Creed from Eusebius of Caesarea’s /pistle to his Paroecians, that is to 
the people of his Diocese, and notes the differences between that text 
here and there and others. He has, however, failed to accent his 
Greek. 

Hahn, in his Bibliothek der Syvmbole, pages 78-81, has followed 
him, but abbreviates some of his notes and leaves out others. He 
there summarizes the places where texts of the Creed of the 318 may 
be found, as follows. I translate from hisGerman and Latin. Writing 
on the text given by himself, Hahn remarks: 

‘Tt is according to Eusebius, in his /pisdle to the Caesareans in 
Athanasius’ Epistle on the Definition of the Council of Nicaea, ‘Tome 
I., Part I., edition of Montfaucon, page 239, whence the above text 
is taken. Besides, that Epistle of Eusebius [to the Caesareans] is 
also found in Theodoret’s Lcclestastical History, Book I., Chapter 
XII.; in Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter VIII., and 
in Gelasius’ History of the Nicene Council, Book II., Chapter XXXV_.; 
in Mansi’s Tome II, page 916. With that Eusebian Recension are 
also to be compared the Recensions of the δή Formula in Atha- 
nasius’ /pistle fo Jovian, in the place mentioned, Part II., page 781; 
in Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History, Book IV., Chapter III.; in So- 
crates’ Ecclesiastical History, in the place mentioned ; in Basil the 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 311 


Great’s Epistle, CXXV., Tome III.. page 215, of the Benedictine 
edition ; in Cyril of Alexandria’s fzsdle to Anastasius, in Tome V., 
Part II., edition of Jo. Aubert, page 174, and in Mansi’s Tome V., 
page 387 and after; in Gelasius, in the place mentioned, in Chapter 
XXVI.; in Mansi’s Tome II., page 878 and after; Eutyches, in his 
Confessional Statement, in Mansi in the Acts of the Council of Chalce- 
don, Tome VI., page 629; in Theodotus of Ancyra’s Look Against 
Nestorius, edition of Combefis, Paris, A. D. 1675, page 24. In the 
Code of the Canons of the African Church, according to Justellus, in 
Mansi’s Tome III., page 708, and besides in the Acts of the Council 
of Ephesus, Act VI., there is a form [of the Nicene Creed], in Mansi’s 
Tome IV., page 1341; and there are two forms [of it] in the Acts of 
the Council of Chalcedon, the one in Act II., Tome VI., page 955, the 
other, which is less true, in Act V., Tome VII., page 109; there is 
also one in the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, in Act XVIIL., 
in Mansi’s Tome XI., page 633 (the Third Council of Constantinople, 
in the following notes). Compare Walch’s Bibliotheca Symbolica, 
page 75 and after, where he specifies with great diligence the litera- 
ture relating to the topic, and compares almost all the other Recen- 
sions with the EKusebian; and on page 87 and after he has given the 
various readings [of the Creed of Nicaea] in a seemly and complete 
manner.’’ Hahn then adds that in his own notes he gives the more 
important readings, and corrects some things in Walch’s statements. 

I will note the more important of those various readings in Walch 
and in Hahn, though I ought to say at the start that they are mainly 
verbal merely, and do not affect any dogma. Such of the texts as 
were written after the adoption of the Creed of the Second Hcumeni- 
cal Council show, once in a while, that the transcriber, in quoting 
the Nicene from memory, adds in something from the Constantino- 
politan, or omits what is not in the Constantinopolitan, ‘but is in the 
Nicene. The form in Act V. of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, that 
is that of Chalcedon, which is quoted below, follows, in some places, 
the Constantinopolitan, not the Nicene. 

The words, ‘‘ both those in the heaven and those on the earth,’ are 
lacking in Act V. of the Council of Chalcedon, probably because they 
are not in the Constantinopolitan, and so the transcriber thought they 
were not in the Nicene. 

The addition, ‘‘out of the heavens,’ which is found in Act V. of 
the Council of Chalcedon, and in the editions of Basil after “‘ came 


312 Chapter VII. 


down,’ is not found there in the manuscripts. It is evidently an ad- 
dition from the Constantinopolitan. 

After ‘‘ took on flesh,’’ the Fifth Act of the Council of Chalcedon 
adds, ‘‘of the Holy Ghost and of Mary the Virgin,’’ evidently from 
the Constantinopolitan. 

Gelasius of Cyzicus, in the place above mentioned, pages 880 and 
g16, after ‘‘ suffered’? adds “ buried’? from the Constantinopolitan. 

Act V. of the Council of Chalcedon, after ‘‘ aud put on a man,” 
adds, exactly as in the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council, 
“And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was 
buried,’ and just below, after the words ‘‘ ογ the third day,” the same 
Act V. of Chalcedon adds : 

“According to the Scriptures,’ as in the Constantinopolitan. 

So Gelasius, in the place above mentioned, page 880, the Code of 
the Canons of the African Church, and Act V. of the Council of Chal- 
cedon, after ‘‘ went up into the heavens,’’ adds, ‘‘And sitteth at the 
right hand of the Father,” as in sense in the Constantinopolitan, and 
in almost exactly or in exactly the same words. So, in sense, we 
find it in the Council of Ephesus and in the Third Council of Con- 
stantinople, A. D. 680, with slight change in the wording. 

So Gelasius, in the place mentioned—the Code of the Canons of 
the Church of Africa, and Acts II. and V. of the Council of Chalcedon 
—with ‘‘cometh’’ add ‘‘again’’ from the Constantinopolitan, and 
Act V. adds, as in the Constantinopolitan, ‘‘zw7th glory,” and after 
the words “‘ to judge the living and the dead,” it subjoins, “of zs 
Kingdom there will be no end,”’ as in the Constantinopolitan. 

Gelasius, in the place mentioned, instead of ‘‘And tm the Holy 
Spirit,” has ‘And in His Holy Spirit.’ And Act V. of the Council 
of Chalcedon has instead, ‘4nd in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life- 
Giver,’ from the Constantinopolitan. 

I would add that the Creed of the 318, as in the Definition of the 
Fourth Ecumenical Council, in Labbé and Cossart, in Hardouin and 
in Mansi, in the additions of them mentioned below, lacks ἢ χτιστόν, 
that is ‘‘or created,’ in its Anathema. Hahn does not note that 
lack. 

Athanasius, in his Zpistle to Jovian ; Socrates, Gelasius, on page 
880; Basil the Great, the Code of the Canons of the African Church, 
Theodotus of Ancyra, Eutyches, and the Council of Chalcedon, in its 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 313 


Acts II. and V., have, in the Anathema, instead of ‘‘ Zhe Universal 
Church,’ the fuller phrase, ‘‘ 7he Universal and Apostolic Church,” 
to which Socrates adds, ‘‘ of God.’ 

Gelasius, on page 916, has, ‘‘ Zhe Apostolic and Catholic Church.” 
Theodoret, in both places, and Socrates once, have, ‘‘ the Holy Uni- 
versal and Apostolic Church.” 

The Council of Ephesus and that of III. Constantinople have, 
‘“ The Holy Universal and Apostolic Church of God.” 

To sum up as to the readings of the Greek of the Creed of the 
318 in the Ecumenical Councils aforesaid. ‘There is very little in the 
way of divergence in the text of it, as in the First, the Second and the 
Fifth Ecumenical Council. The different readings above specified 
refer to the Third Ecumenical Council, the Fourth and the Sixth, as. 
in Mansi’s text. 

Let us glance at them. 


First, as to the Third Synod: 

St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his long letter to Nestorius, which 
has the X7/. Chapters, gives the Nicene Creed. It is found in Mansi’s 
Concilia, Tome IV., column 1072. It was read in Act I. of the Third 
Ecumenical Council. It differs from Hahn’s text, as on pages 78-80 
of his Bibliothek der Symbole, as follows : 

1. It puts τὸν povoyery (that is ‘‘ the Sole-Born’’) next after τὸν 
υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ (that is after ‘‘the Son of God’’), whereas Hahn puts 
‘ Sole-Born’’ (μονογενῆ) without τὸν (that is without ‘‘¢he’’) after ἐκ 
tod πατρύς (that is after ‘‘out of the Father’’). 

2. It has xat (‘‘and’’) before ἐνανθρωπήσαντα (that is before ‘‘ put 
on a man.’ 


3. It has no zat (‘‘and’’) before ἐρχόμενον (that is ‘ 
4. It has τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (that is ‘‘ the Holy Ghost’’), which 


differs in wording a little—not at all in sense—from Hahn's text. 


‘cometh’’), 


5. It has τινός (‘‘any’’) before ὑποστάσεως (“΄ subsistence’’). 


ce 


6. It omits χτιστόν (that is ‘‘ created’’) in the Anathema. 
7. It has χαὶ ἀποστολιχή (‘and Afostolic’’) towards the end of the 


Anathema. 


The Creed of the 318 was read in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical 
Council, but is not there given in full in Mansi, but the reader is re- 
ferred to it as in Cyril’s Epistle above. 


314 ; Chapter VII, 


Now, second, as to the Fourth Council: 

‘The references to Act V. of the Council of Chalcedon (the Fourth 
Ecumenical), on pages 79 and 800f Hahn’s Bibliothek der Symbole, 
are to the Nicene Creed as, in Greek and Latin, in the Definition of 
Chalcedon. Why it should differ so much from that Creed of the 
First Ecumenical Council I cannot tell. The notes on it in Mansi’s 
Concilia, Tome VII., columns 10g and 110, tell us that the additions 
in tt are not in the old codexes. 

It is followed in Mansi, Tome VII., column 112, by the Creed 
of the Second Ecumenical Council. 

Remarkably enough, in Act II. of Chalcedon, as in Mansi’s 
Concilia, ‘Tome VI., column 956, the Nicene Creed is found in the 
common form, as given from Eusebius of Caesarea by Hahn, on pages 
79 and 80, except that it has za? before ἐνανθρωπήσαντα and πάλιν before 
ἐρχόμενον, and τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον instead of Hahn’s τὸ ἅγλιον πνεῦμα, and it 
omits χτιστόν in the Anathema at the end, and has χαὶ ἀποστολιχὴ be- 
fore its final word ἐχχλησία. 


Or, to put those differences into English, it has: 


1. ‘‘And’’ before ‘‘ put on a man.” 


ian 


2. “‘Agam™ petore “cometh.” 


3. It has a different wording for the ‘‘ Holy Ghost,’’ but not a 
different sense. 


4. It has ‘‘ and Apostolic’ before ‘‘ Church.”’ 


The form in that Act II. professes to be the Creed of the 318, 
and is formally given as such. For Cecropius, Bishop of Sebastopolis, 
asks for the reading of the Creed of the 318 Holy Fathers. 

In response we read : 

‘The most glorious Archons and the most ample Senate said, 
Let there be read what was set forth by the Three Hundred and 
Highteen Holy Fathers, who came together in Nicaea. 


Eunomius, the most reverent Bishop of Nicomedia, read from a 
Book : 


“ The Statement of the Synod held at Nicaea.”’ 
Then follows the Creed of the 318, as above mentioned. 
Now, third, as to the Sixth Synod. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 815 


The Nicene Creed, as in the Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical 
Synod, Act XVIII. (column 633 of Tome XI. of Mansi’s Concilia), 
differs from Hahn's text: 


1. It has zat before ἐνανθρωπήσαντα (that is ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘ put on 
aman’), 


2. It adds, ‘‘ and sitteth at the right hand of the Father.’’ 
3. In the Anathema it omits 7 χτιστὸν (that is ‘‘or created’’), and 


4. At the end it has τούτους ἀναθεματέξει ἡ ἁγία tod Θεοῦ χκαθυλιχὴ χαὶ 
ἀποστολιχὴ ἐχχλησία, instead of Hahn’s Eusebius’ reading, ἀναθεματέξει ἡ 
χαθολιχὴ ἐχχλησία ; that is, it has: 


‘These the Holy Universal and Apostolic Church of God An- 
athematizes,’’ instead of ‘‘The Universal Church Anathematizes.’’ 


So much on the various readings of the different Greek texts 
of the Nicene Creed. 


Sometimes, in the editions of the Couzc/s, only the beginning of 
the Creed of the 318, and of that of the 150 of the Second Synod, is 
given. For instance, we read, here and there, the Nicene as follows: 

‘“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all visible 
and of all invisible things, etc.,’’ the rest being understood while the 
Nicene Creed was still in common use. 


I have thought thatin Act V. of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, 
andin Act XVIII. of the Sixth, the original might have had that 
only, but that at some later time, when the Creed of the 150 had 
taken the place of that of the 318, another copyist might give the Creed 
of the 318 in full, as he understood it, no matter how mistakenly, and 
that hence the variations from the original form of it might have 
arisen. The Bishops of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, A. D. 451, 
Witness in their exclamations in the Council that it was the Creed 
into which they had been baptized, and into which they baptized. 
And so it must have remained, the Creed still taught the Catechumens. 
How long after that it was that the Creed of the Second Ecumenical 
Council supplanted it may admit of some doubt (472). But we know 


(472). Swainson, in his article ‘‘ Cyveed,’’ in Smith and Cheetham’s Dic- 
tionary of Christian Antiquities, tells us, from Theodorus Lector (Hist. Fccl., 
Ῥ. 563) that Timotheus, Bishop of Constantinople, A. D. 511, ordered ‘‘that the 
Creed shouldbe recited * * * at every congregation, whereas previously it had 


316 Chapter VII. 


that the Creed of the 150 was used at the Eucharist in Spain in A. D. 
589, and that that was the custom of the Oriental Churches before 


been used only on the Thursday before Easter, when the Bishops catechized the 
candidates fur baptism.’’ Swainson adds that the order speaks of ‘‘the Creed of 
the 318,” but thinksit must there mean the Creed of the 150 Bishops of the Second 
Ecumenical Council. But to the Greek of that day the words would mean, as 
they did at Chalcedon only about sixty years before, the Creed of the First Ecu- 
menical Council. The reason why Swainson thinks that the Creed of the 150 
must be meant, and not the Nicene, is that Timothy’s object ‘‘ was to express the 
continued abhorence which the Church felt for the teaching of Macedonius.” 
From that language of his, Swainson seems to think that the Macedonius meant 
is the notorious heretic who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, and was 
made Bishop of Constantinople A. D. 342 or 343, and that Timothy aimed to 
oppose his errors on the Spirit, on which the Constantinopolitan Creed is fuller 
than the Nicene. But the context of Theodore Lector, just before, shows that 
not he but the Orthodox Macedonius, who was made Bishop of Constantinople 
A. Ὁ. 495, is intended. He was exiled by the Monophysite Emperor Anastasius, 
and Timothy, a Monophysite heretic, was put into his place in A. D. 511 by that 
monarch. Timothy undoubtedly ordered the Creed of the 318 to be recited, as 
Theodorus Lector asserts—not that of the 150. The Monophysite party were 
wont to assert that the Orthodox did not admit the Creed of the 318 because 
they did not admit their heretical Monophysite sense of it. There was no dis- 
cussion between the Orthodox and the Monophysites as to the Divinity of the 
Holy Ghost, for both admitted it. Their difference was on the two Natures of 
Christ, on which the Symbol of the 318 is so full. Hence the passage of Theo- 
dorus Lector relates to Macedonius, who was made Bishop of Constantinople in 
A. D. 495. I quote the passage of Theodorus Lector from column 201, Tome 86, 
of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, Translated, it is as follows : 

“Timothy contrived that the Symbol of the Faith of the Three Hundred 
and Eighteen Fathers should be said in every Church gathering, undoubtedly to 
favor a slanderous charge against Macedonius, as though he did not receive the 
Symbol, it having been said before once a year [only] on the Holy Preparation 
Day of the divine suffering [our Good Friday], at the time when the Catechetical 
instructions were given by the Bishop.’? See the articles in Smith and Wace’s 
Di@ionary of Christian Biography, on “ Macedonius (3) II.,’’ ‘‘Timotheus 
(24). Daniell’s article on the latter states that the custom of saying the Creed 
at every service has been ascribed to the Monophysite Peter the Fuller, who was 
the intruding Patriarch of Antioch, A. Ὁ. 471-488. Indeed, Nicephorus Cal- 
listus states of Theodorus Lector (column 208, Tome 86, of Migne’s Patrologia 
Graeca) that he was the originator of that good custom, and also of the idola- 
trous and creature-serving one of naming the Virgin Mary in every prayer. Anc 
it was no wonder that the creature-servers who, as Monophysite heretics, wor- 
shipped the merely created humanity of Christ as God, should go one step 
further and mame, that is, I think, zzvoke here, the Virgin Mary, and so con- 
trary to Christ’s own prohibition in Matthew IV., Io, give an act of religions 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 317 


Sn nnn IIIa sn nnn nn ERS 


(473), and in baptism at Rome in the ninth century, fora Roman 
Baptismal Order of about that date has the Constantinopolitan—not 
the Nicene (474). After A. D. 800, when the Nicene had passed out 
of common use and was very little known except to scholars, a com- 
mon copyist would very naturally get it confounded with the Con- 
stantinopolitan, and sometimes would lug into it parts of the Con- 
stantinopolitan, when he attempted to supply the words which might 
be lacking after the first line or so in older manuscripts, and from 


service to a creature. The term mamed is used in the sense of zvvoke in 
Canon XXXV. of Laodicea, where the invocation of angels is forbidden. 

I quote Theodore Lector’s language in column 208 of Tome 86 of Migne’s 
Patrologia Graeca, as reported by Nicephorus Callistus. It is, translated, as 
follows : 

“Theodore Lector says that Peter the Fuller contrived that the sacred oint- 
ment should be consecrated in the Church before all the people, and that the 
invocation over the waters at the Theophany (our Epiphany, Sophocles’ Greek 
Lexicon, under θεοφάνια) should be performed in the evening: and that the 
Bringer Forth of God should be named in every prayer [or perhaps better ‘‘77 
every Service of prayer,” Greek ἐν ἑκάστῃ εὐχῇ} and that the Creed should be said 
in every meeting,” [ἐν πάσῃ Συνάξει.1 The name of the Virgin is used in prayer 
in the public services now, alas! not only by the Monophysites but also by the 
Greeks, but I am not aware that it is said ‘“‘7” every prayer,” though it is said in 
services of prayer very often. At what time the Greeks took that creature-wor- 
shipping sin from the Monophysites, I can not say. 

The author of Note 7, column 209, Tome 86 of Migne’s Palrologia Graeca, 
“understands by iz every meeting’’ above, at every E ucharistic service, though 
he admits that the expression in its literal sense may be applied to any meeting. 
Moreover, referring to the statement above, that the Monophysite Timothy had 
introduced the custom of so reciting the Nicene Creed, lie tiinks both that state- 
ment and this may be reconciled by supposing that Peter the Fuller first insti- 
tuted it at Antioch, and that it was afterwards adopted by his fellow-heretic 
Timothy, for Constantinople, which seems a rational explanation. That note 
concludes: ‘Indeed, those rites which are said to have been first instituted by 
the Fuller, were not used at once by all churches, but in the course of time, little 
by little, they got into use.”” Alas, that was so of his invoking of the Virgin, 
which brings God’s curse. But the good custom of reciting the Creed at every 
Eucharist was productive of good. 

The Monophysites seem often, or generally, to have preferred the Creed of 
the 318, to thatof the 150 for public recitation. For instance, the Creed com- 
monly used by the Armenian Monophysites at this hour is that of the 318, some- 
what added to. See page 62 above. 


(473). Id., page 491, vol. I., and Canon II. of Third Toledo. 
(474). Id., page 492, vol. I. It seems to me that the existence of the Con- 


318 Chapter VII. 


a aS — — 


such attempts by unscholarly copyists I have supposed that the ad- 
ditions to the Creed of the 318, in Act V. of Chalcedon, and in Act 
XVIII. of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, might have come. 


Yet, at the same time, it must be admitted that those who drew 
up the Definition of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and those who 
drew up that of the Sixth, could, as Ecumenical Synods representing 
the whole Church and under the influence of the Holy Spirit prom- 
ised by Christ to the Universal Apostolate, have added in their Defi- 
nitions any such words as parts of the Creed in said Definition as they 
might choose. That act would not, of course, abolish the older form 
put forth at Nicaea in A. D. 325. 

On examining the different editions of the Councils, I find that 
in the Definition in Act V. of the Fourth Ecumenical Council the 
following have exactly the same readings of the Creed of the 318, 
which Hahn, as above, mentions as not in the form of it as given by 
Eusebius of Caesarea, nor in that given by St. Athanasius in his 
Epistle to Jovian : 

1. Labbé and Cossart, Tome IV. (Paris, A. Ὁ. 1671), column 
563. 

2. Hardouin, Tome II. (Paris, A. D. 1714), column 453. 

3. Mansi, Tome VII. (Florentiae, A. D. 1762), column Tog. 


stantinopolitan Creed in the Roman Baptismal Office is best explained by the 
fact that after the conquest of Rome by the Eastern Emperor Justinian, in the 
sixth century, and during the Greek occupation, in centuries VI., VII. and VIII., 
some of the Bishops of that city were Orientals, and as by their time the Con- 
stantinopolitan Creed had displaced the Nicene in the Greek Baptismal Orders, 
and as they, as Greeks, had never known the Roman local Creed, called the 
Apostles’, and as they would naturally prefer the Creed of the Second Ecumeni- 
cal Council to it, as being of universal authority and use, they would naturally 
introduce it into the Roman Baptismal Order, the more especially as it guards 
the doctrine of the Trinity vastly better than the simple Roman Creed, and by 
the profession of belief in the ‘oe Holy Universal and Apostolic Church,” it 
bound every one who recited it from his heart, in the sense of the Universal 
Councils, to accept, after A. D. 553, the Five Ecumenical Synods, and to accept 
the whole Six in A. D. 680, when the Sixth was held. It is strange that the 
Roman local Creed, which an Anti-Trinitarian can sign, and which the heresi- 
archs Arius and Macedonius could use, should still be used in any professedly 
Trinitarian Church at baptism. It really does not ask a man to believe in the 
Trinity at all, nor in the ‘‘one Baptism for the remission of sins.’? ‘The Con- 
stantinopolitan does. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 319 


But Baluze, in his Mew Collection of the Councils (Nova Collectio 
Conciliorum), Tome I. (Paris, A. D. 1683), columns 1389-1392, 
gives what appears to be an old Latin version of the Definition of the. 
Fourth Ecumenical Council. The Creed of the 318 in it differs very- 
widely from the present Greek in Labbé and Cossart, in Hardouin. 
and in Mansi, as referred to last above, for it lacks all the additions. 
to Eusebius of Caesarea’s text, and to Athanasius’, found in those 
editions, in Act. V. of Chalcedon, and noted on the Creed of the 318. 
by Hahn. It lacks also ‘‘ God out of God, Light out of Light” and 
‘or created’’? in the Anathema, which we find in Eusebius and in 
Athanasius, and, like Athanasius, has in the Anathema, ‘‘ aud Afos- 
tolic’’? before ‘‘ Church.’ This implies that it was made from a Greek 
text of the Definition of Chalcedon, different, so far as the Creed of’ 
the 318 is concerned, from that which we now find in Labbé and. 
Cossart, Hardouin and Marsi, in the places of their editions specified 
above, and, with the exception of the omission of ‘‘ God out of God, 
Light out of Light’? and ‘‘or created,’’ it follows the sense of the 
Nicene Creed in St. Athanasius’ Fpist/e to Jovian, and seems to have 
been translated from a copy of it in that Definition of Chalcedon. 
Mansi, Tome VII., column 748, gives the Definition with that Creed 
as in Baluze, as above, that is, without the additions to it which we 
find in the editions of Labbé and Cossart, Hardouin and Mansi, in Act 
V. cf Chalcedon. He teils us, in column 746, that he gives the Latin 
translation of the Definition of Chalcedon, which contains that Creed 
of the 318 from ‘‘ three old codexes in the Colbertine Library.’ From 
what Baluze writes on the old Latin translation of the Acts of the 
Fourth Ecumenical Council (Baluze’s New Collection of the Councils, 
Tome I., column 953 and after), and from what Mansi says in his 
Councils (Tome VII., column 727), I have doubted whether the 
Greek additions to the Creed of the 318, in Act V. of Chalcedon, do 
not represent a later Greek text of the Definition of Chalcedon than 
that from which was made the old Latin translation just mentioned, 
which has not those additions. Whether Rusticus, a Deacon of the 
Roman Church in the sixth century, or some one else translated them 
from a defective Latin translation back into Greek, I know not. I 
can not account for them. 

Now for the Variations in the Latin Translations of the Greek. 

Walch, on pages 80-93 of his Bibliotheca Symbolica Vetus, gives. 
no less than eleven of them. 


32) Chapter VII, 


Of them all, two or three only belong to the fourth century, and 
therefore, as being the most ancient, are of most authority. They 
are: 

1. That of Hilary of Poictiers : 

2. That of Lucifer of Cagliari (both of the fourth century): and 


3. That of Rufinus of Aquileia. Rufinus’ may belong to the 
opening years of the fifth at the latest. 


Translated into English, they read, in the main, like one or the 
other of the two English translations just given above. 

The differences are noted below. They are slight, and do not 
affect doctrine. They are mainly merely verbal. Probably most or 
all of them are mere copyists’ errors. 

Now for the Chief Variations of the Latin Versions from Hahn's 
Leusebius’ Greek text, and from each other. J include the eleven Latin 
Versions given on pages 80-93 in Walch. 

The translation of Hilary of Poictiers, made in the fourth cen- 
tury, has simply ‘‘the Catholic Church’’—that is, of course, ‘‘ the 
Universal Church.’ It is given by Hahn, pages 80 and 8&1 cf his 
Bibliothek der Symbole, and by Walch on pages 80 and 81 of his 
Bibliotheca Symbolica Vetus. ‘That is the only one of the eleven Latin 
translations that has precisely ‘‘ the Catholic Church’ (‘‘ Catholica 
Ecclesia ’’)—that is, ‘‘ the Universal Church.’’ 


ce 


Of the ten remaining, no less than eight have exa¢tly ‘Catholic 
and Apestolic Church’’ (‘‘ Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia’’). They 
are’ Versions Ti. ELL. Vie Wh eV ex oe anid er 

Translation IV. is merely a quotation from the Nicene Creed in 
an Epistle of Pope Leo I. to the Emperor Leo. It is not exact in 
every part, for after the words ‘‘of one substance with the father’ i 
adds, ‘‘ which the Greeks call ὁμοούσιον," and it omits the whole of the 
Anathema at the end of the Creed. Walch, on page 84, notes that 
there is considerable variety in the readings, both in the printed edi- 
tions and in the manuscripts. : 

Version V. has ‘‘ the Apostolic Church,’’ the words ‘‘ Catholicand”’ 
being omitted by a copyist’s error. 

I will here notice a little more at length the eight Latin transla- 
tions which have ‘‘ the Catholic and Apostolic Church’? (Catholica et 
Apostolica Ecclesia). 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: ᾿ς Creed 321 


The old Latin Version in Lucifer of Cagliari, of the fourth cen- 
tury (Version II. in Walch), has ‘‘ Catholic and Apostolic Church’? 
(Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia, Walch, page 82). Exactly the 
same words are found in the Latin translation of Rufinus, who 
flourished in the same century (page 82in Walch; Version III. there), 
and in a Latin Version in the Code of the African Church, which was 
afterwards recited in the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle, A. D. 789 
(Walch, page 86; Version VI. there), and in the Latin Version of 
Epiphanius Scholasticus (Walch, pages 86 and 87; Version VII. 
there), and in an old Latin translation of Act II. of the Council of 
Chalcedon (Walch, pages 87 and 88; Version VIII. there), and of 
Act V. of the same Synod (Walch, pages 88 and 89; Version IX. 
there); and in a Latin Version in the Ancient Latin translation of 
the Canons (pages 89 and go in Walch; Version X. there), and in an 
old Latin Version in a manuscript of Verona (page 90 in Walch; 
Version XI. there). Those are the eight old Latin Versions. 


Besides, an old Latin translation in Marius Mercator, of century 
V., given in Walch, page 85—Version V. there—has ‘‘the Apostolic 
Church’? (Apostolica Ecclesia), without the word ‘ Unzversal’’ 
(Catholica), but the omission of the latter term is evidently a copyist’s 
error. 

But that Version is quite faulty. For instead of the true reading 
at the end, 


“ΟΥ̓ who assert that the Son of God is a Creature, or mutable 
or convertible [into anything else], the Universal [and Apostolic] 
Church anathematizes,’’ it has only, 


“ΟΥ̓ who assert that the Son is υζεζόϊο or mutable, the Apostolic 
Church anthematizes.’’ ‘That is to say, in those few words the fol- 
lowing omissions occur: 


τ: God.” 

Dee An CHCAIUIE. 

3. ‘‘Convertible,’’ and 

4. ‘‘ Untversal’’ [and]. besides ts 


5. ‘‘Vistble is wrongly added, for there is no Greek to base it on. 


322 Chapter VIL. 


— 


Walch, on page 85, remarks on that Latin Version : 

‘Tt utterly departs from the Greek manuscripts and from the 
rest of the Latin Versions. We suspect that the singular expression 
‘cnvistble’ is a corruption arising from the fault of copyists, and that 
it should be changed to ‘ convertible.’’’ Walch is right. ‘The trans- 
lation is evidently carelessly made, and is of no worth in this place. 

Two Latin translations elsewhere of the Nicene Creed may here 
be noted. 

The first is ‘‘ 7he Forthset of the Nicene Faith, from a manu- 
script of the Colbertine Library.’ See the marginal note in Hardouin’s 
Councils, Tome I., column 311. That Latin Version reads as follows 
at the end: 

‘‘ Catholic and Apostolic Church’’ (Catholica et Apostolica Ec- 
clesia). 

It quotes the Greek term ὁμοούσιον, and explains it in Latin to 
mean, ‘‘ of the same substance with the Father.”’ 

So it quotes the Greek word τρεπτόν in the Anathema, and ex- 
plains it to mean ‘‘ convertible or mutable.” 

In column 312, Tome I., of Hardouin’s Conci/ca—that is in the 
column directly opposite the last quoted form of the Nicene Creed in 
Latin—is found the following : 

‘Here beginneth the Faith composed at Nicaea by the 318 be- 
lieving Bishops.’’ Then it gives it. It, like the last above, has 
‘born’? (natum) instead of our bad rendering ‘‘ degotten,”’ but instead 
of ‘‘ zot made’? after it, it has ‘' of created.’’ 

It tries, but imperfectly, to give ὁμοούσιον in Latin letters, for it 
leaves out an ‘‘o,’’ but it explains it well to mean, ‘‘ of the same sub- 
stance as the Father.’’ 

Below it explains τρεπτόν of the Anathema, quoted in Greek let- 
ters, to mean ‘‘ convertible or mutable,’ and it, like the last, has at 
the end, ‘‘ Catholic and Apostolic Church’’ (Catholica et Apostolica 
Ecclesia). 

This last Latin translation of the Nicene Creed is, says Hardouin, 
in his Concilia, Tome I., column 312, margin, ‘‘ From one of our 
manuscripts, which the amanuensis affirms was written in the year 
of Christ 800.”’ 

In the False Decretals of Isidore the Creed of the 318 figures, to 


Nicaea, A. DP, 325° Tis Creed. 323 


some extent, in its usual form in Latin, and with matter added to 
glorify the see of Rome. 

For instance, in column 694, Tome I., of Hardouin’s Cozecdlia, 
there is an Epistle purporting to be from Athanasius and the Egyptian 
Bishops to Pope Liberius. But in Hardouin, Tome I., column 694, 
in the margin, the following remark is made concerning it " 

“ Tt ἧς also spurious.’ Lt ts from the Colleétion of Isidore. 

It contains what purports to be the Creed of Athanasius and the 
Bishops, who, with him, profess to be the authors of the letter or 
epistle. It is the Nicene Creed. At the end of the Anathema it 
has, ‘‘ the Catholic and Apostolic Church’’ (Catholica et Apostolica, 
Ecclesia). 

In the margin, directly opposite the above, and on it, occurs the 
statement that, ‘‘/¢t zs the Nicene Creed, in Rufinus translation.” 
That translation is the 1114. in Walch, and is remarked ou above. 


After that Anathema the spurious Isidore adds, in the epistle 
purporting to be that of Athanasius and the Egyptian Bishops : 


‘That venerable Faith the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers 
acknowledged and embraced, and in harmony and unanimously ex- 
plained in writings.”’ 

In column 695, Tome I., of Hardouin’s Concilia, will be found 
what claims to be an answer of Pope Liberius to the same persons. 
But Hardouin, in the margin of column 695, Tome 1.» of the Coveczlza, 
remarks of it: ‘‘It is likewise spurious; it is from the Collection of 
Isidore.’’ That forged epistle represents Pope Liberius as formally 
approving the Nicene Creed, and as forbidding any one to bring for- 
ward, or to write, or to compose, or to hold, or to teach otherwise 
than it does, or to hold anything in faith, or to bring forward any- 
thing if it opposes the rules of the Fathers. Then, in about the 
language of Canon VII. of the Third Ecumenical Council, it forbids. 
to compose, or to bring forward, or to deliver any other Creed to 
those desiring to turn into the way of truth from any heresy whatso- 
ever, or to turn from Judaism or Paganism to become Christians, 
under penalty of deposition if they are clerics, or of anathema if they 
are monks or laymen. The forger who wrote that epistle here aseribes 
the prohibition, which was really put forth by the Council of Ephesus 
AOD 4et,.to: Nicaea AC: 22, and to Pope Liberius, who died 
Ae DS 266: 


324 Chapter VIL. 


ance ----. 


But, as has been said, the variations in the text do notaffect any 
dogma. Indeed, they are almost all confined to faulty and uncritical 
manuscripts. The great bulk of the manuscripts and the oldest Latin 
translations are overwhelmingly for the common Greek text. Indeed, 
the others are not worthy of being mentioned. The only important 
variation in the good and authoritative manuscripts is as to the words 
‘‘and Apostolic’? in the Anathema; Eusebius of Caesarea’s Greek 
text, and Hilary of Poictiers’ Latin Version rejecting them, and St. 
Athanasius’ Greek, and Lucifer of Cagliari’s Latin, and Rufinus’ 
Latin having them. 

As both Eusebius and St. Athanasius were present at the Council 
of Nicaea, and as Hilary of Poictiers and Lucifer of Cagliari were 
their contemporaries, and active in the Arian struggle; and as 
Jerome lived in the same fourth century, it is not easy to decide 
which text is best as to those two words. 


Yet we would naturally suppose, as to the Greek, that if the 
question were ouly as to which of the two above mentioned as giving 
itis the more authoritative, the authority of the Orthodox Atha- 
nasius would outweigh that of the Arian Eusebius of Caesarea. I 
would prefer, therefore, to read in the Anathema, “ 7he Universal 
and Apostolic Church anathematizes ;’’ not “" The Universal Church 
anathematizes.’’ 

The translation of Hilary seems to be made from the Greek of 
Eusebius of Caesarea, for it agrees with it in every chief thing, except 
that the text given by Walch omits the word ‘‘creatcd,’” I suspect 
by a copyist’s error, the more so as Walch, on page 81, remark III., 
witnesses that the manuscripts of Hilary vary as to the Creed of the 
318. 
The Latin translation of Lucifer of Cagliari and that of Rufinus 
seem to have been translated from the text of St. Athanasius’ L/zs/le 
to Jovian, and they differ from Hilary’s Version mainly in the fact 
that, like Athanasius, they have ‘‘ and Afostolic’’ between “‘ Catholic” 
and ‘‘ Church’’ in the Anathema. 


SECTION 3.—We come now to speak of Gelasius of Orzicus, and of his 
work on the Nicene Council, and to show tts unreliability. 


Gelasius of Cyzicus, of the last half of the fifth century, of whom 
we have spoken on page 267 above, is so late as to be of little use or 


Nicaea, A. D. 325. Its Creed. 325 


importance as to the text of the Creed of Nicaea. Besides, his own 
language shows that he was tinctured and tainted with creature- 
worship. For instance, in the preface to his work on Nicaea he calls 
Mary ‘“‘ the all-reverend and Holy Virgin Mary.’ Here the expression 
‘« all-reverend,’’ if taken in its plain sense, is clearly creature-serving 
and idolatrous. We see here that the period of paganizing and the 
curse had already come in, and the punishment was preparing in 
Chosroes the Persian, and the Goths and others; and, when no re- 
pentance came, in Mohammed the Saracen. Only think of it, a mere 
creature is ‘‘all-reverend,’’ and God is only ‘‘veverend.’’ And the 
Patriarch of Constantinople, in the Greek Church, is actually ad- 
dressed as ‘‘ Your All-Holiness,’’ whereas God is called merely 
« Ffoly.’’ Surely every Christian heart, East and West, should be 


pained at such extravagant and wrong titles to creatures, and reform 
them. 
Again, he calls the rule of truth set forth in the Scriptures, “Zo 


be bowed to’’—that is, ‘‘ adorable’’—(=pooxv474s) which is creature- 
serving language, for the Scriptures and their doctrine are to be 
obeyed, not to be adored, that is, not to be bowed to, for all dowzng, 
that is, adoration, is prerogative to Almighty God, for it is an act of 
religious service. For Christ says plainly, in Matthew IV., Io, 
ες Thou shalt bow to the Lord, thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’ 
Of course all worship of the Scriptures, or of any ru/e or g7/t in them, 
though defended by paganizers, on the plea of relative worship, is 
plainly heathen, for that excuse of relative worship is the constant 
plea of the pagans for their bowing to their images, altars, relics, 
sacred books and other mere things. So, in the same place, he calls 
the rule of Christian preaching ‘‘ adoradle,’’ which, of course, is pagan 
language. 

Gelasius shows the most utter ignorance of the real character of 
the Arian, Eusebius of Nicaea; for whereas all the facts show that 
he was a chief friend of the heresiarch Arius and a sharer of his errors 
against the Divinity of the Son of God, he makes him Arius’ foe. For 
in his Acs of the Nicene Council, Book 11., Chapter I., in defending 
the Orthodoxy of Eusebius of Caesarea, he writes, foolishly, the fol- 
lowing error: 


‘His strivings in the Synod held in the city of the Nicaeans, 
against the impiety of Arius, and in behalf of the Apostolic and 
Orthodox Faith, exhikit his Orthodoxy.’’ 


His strivings there were really against Orthodoxy. 


326 Chapter VTT. 

Venables, in his article ‘‘ Gelastus of Cyzicus,’’ in Smith and 
Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, shows that the Anglican 
Cave and the Latins Dupin and Natalis Alexander witness to the 
blunders and errors of that writer, and the list of those who censure 
him as unreliable might be much extended, for it includes the scholar- 
ship of the Christian world. For that reason 1 can make but little 
use of him. My own judgment agrees with that of Natalis Alex- 
ander, as quoted by Venables below, in his article on Ge/aszus, 


In that article Venables, referring to the notion that Gelasius 
based part of his account on another statement on Nicaea, writes : 


‘‘But either the original document must have been most untrust- 
worthy, belonging rather to the domain of fiétion than fact, or Gelasius 
himself must have so overlaid it with the inventions of his own imagin- 
ation that, as an historical authority, it is almost worthless. ‘The 
prolix disputations and lengthy orations, of which it is full, as Cave 
has justly remarked, are evidently the writer’s own composition. 
Dupin’s verdict is still more severe. He calls Gelasius ‘a sorry com- 
piler, who gathered all he met with relating to his subject, both bad and 
good, without examining whether it was true or false.’ Wis work is 
little more than a compilation from the ecclesiastical histories of 
Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, to which he has added 
little but what is very doubtful or manifestly untrue. ‘ 7heve zs 
neither order in his narrative, nor exaéiness in his observations, nor 
elegance in his language, nor judgment in his selection of facls, nor 
good sense in his judgments.’ As instances of his untrustworthiness, 
we may mention that he states that the Council was summoned by 
Pope Sylvester, and that Hosius of Cordova presided as his delegate, 
and devotes many chapters (Lib. II., C. 11-24) to disputations on 
the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, which had not, at the time, become 
subject of controversy at all. 


‘‘ Natalis Alexander also condemns the work as being ‘ levissimi 
ponderis’ [that is ‘of very little weight’|, except when confirmed by 
other authorities, and says of it, ‘scatet erroribus’ [that is, “22 abounds 
γος Lec. Aist.; Saee. UV, -dissert. 13.” 


Besides, he makes Rufinus of Aquileia, seemingly, to be a Roman 
presbyter, and present at the Council of Nicaea, though he was not 
born till about A. D. 345—that is about twenty years after Nicaea 
was held. And Ffoulkes, in his article, ‘‘ Wicaea, Councils of,’’ in 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. O27 


Smith and Cheetham’s Ditionary of Christian Antiquities ina passagé 
quoted below, speaks of Gelasius of Cyzicus as ‘‘a writer of the poorest 
credit, who makes Constantinople the seat of empire when the Council 
met.’ .'The fact is, the city was not consecrated till May 11, 33¢ 
(page 632 of Volume I. of Smith and Wace’s Diétionary of Christia’ 
Biography). 

Gelasius’ work on Nicaea is in three books. The first is really 
not on the Council, for it merely narrates the life of Constantine, the 
Emperor, ‘‘until,’’ remarks Venables, ‘‘ his victory over Licinius,’ 
which was before A. D. 325, the date of the Council of Nicaea. 

T’he second book of Gelasius does treat of Nicaea, and Venables 
says of it: 

“The second book, in thirty-six chapters, comprehends the his 
tory of the Council, embellished with imaginary speeches and dis- 
cussions between the Bishops and heathen philosophers that can 
never have taken place. * * * * ‘The prolix narrative of the 
debates between Phaedo, a heathen philosopher holding Arian opin- 
ions, and the most learned members of the Council—Eustathius, 
Hosius, Eusebius, ete.—is stamped by Valesius (404. in Socr., H. 
E.I., 8) as decidedly supposititious. The acquaintance with theology 
and familiarity with the Holy Scriptures shown in Phaedo’s argu- 
ments exceeds all probability. De Broglie is probably correct in 
regarding these discussions as specimens of Christian declamations, 
written as literary exercises, but not with any deliberate intention to 
deceive, but accepted as authority by the uncritical compiler (Z’ Eglise 
el Le eenpive, ΤΠ 23)."? 

Incidentally, I would remark that Hefele, a Romanist, mentions 
a fact worth noting. It is that the third of Gelasius’ three books on 
the Council of Nicaea has been tampered with. For he states of it: 

‘The third [book] is wholly composed of three letters of Con- 
stantine’s; but we may presume that it was formerly larger, and 
contained particularly the account of Constantine’s baptism, which 
Photius borrowed from Gelasius, but which was subsequently muti- 
lated, in order that the honor of having been the place where the 
great Emperor received baptism might not be taken from the city of 
Rome. However, no sort of proof is given in support of this sus- 
picion” (Hefele’s Councils, Volume I., page 265). 

\ I would say that so much of that cutting off and adding to has 


9 
Lo 
Ww 


Chapter VIL. 


been done in the interest of Rome that the suspicion seems natural 
that the excision here has been done for her. 


Was the making of Hosius, in Gelasius, a representative of Rome, 
contrary to the earlier writers, an addition made by some one later 
than Gelasius in the interest of Rome ? 


Gelasius bears witness, however, to the Scvzpturalness of the 
Creed of Nicaea, and that again and again. For instance, in the 
preface before Book I. he mentions ‘‘ Our Holy and Orthodox Faith, 
which at the first from the Holy Apostles and our Foly Fathers * * * 
who were assembled in the city of the Nicaeans, has flourished tn the 
Church of God, our Mother’ (475). 


Below he refers to Nicaea as ‘‘ that Holy Synod on behalf of the 
rule of the same Floly and Apostolic Faith, which the Church of God 
has recetved neither from men nor by men, but from the Saviour of us 
all Himself and God, Jesus Christ.” 


In Chapter IX. of Book I., Gelasius, though himself not sound 
in some of his expressions, nevertheless shows that he has not for- 
gotten that one of the grievous parts of Arius’ heresy was its creature- 
worship. For, speaking, in Chapter IX. of Book I. of his work, of 
his intention to write on the First Ecumenical Council, he says: 


‘‘’These matters Eusebius Pamphili, in all respects very excel- 
lent (476), has put together in the ninth book of his Lcclestastical 
ffistory, from whose labors, as I have already said, and from those of 
others, I select and compile, in a brief form, this book, with the 
greatest zeal hastening the narrative to the lofty and bright-appear- 
ing, the Holy and Divine Mountain (ρος) of the Apostolic and excel- 
lent Synod of the Priests of God at Nicaea; especially when I see 
the prophet taking me by the hand and urging me forward. ‘‘ Come, 
ye,’ says he, ‘‘and let us go up to the Mountain (ὄρος) of the Lord, to 


(475.) Gelasius of Cyzicus, Volumen Actorum Concilit Nicaent, Lib. Δ, 
pracfat, speaks of the Nicene Faith as the Faith of the Apostles: Διὰ ταῦτα καὶ 
δ ἀλλα πολλὰ κινηθέντα κατὰ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως ἡμῶν, τῆς ἀνέκαθεν EK TE τῶν 
ἁγίων ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν προῤῥηθέντων ἁγίων ἡμῶν πατέρων τῶν Ev τῇ Νικαξων συνειλεγμένων, 
ἐν τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ μητρὶ ἡμῶν πολιτευομένης, KTA, 

(476.) A lamentable proof of Gelasius’ ignorance of the pronounced and 


inveterate Arianism to the last of Eusebius of Caesarea. Had he read Athanasius 
more he would have ascertained the facts. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 329 


the House of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of His ways, and 
we will walk in His paths, for out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and 
the word of the Lord from Jerusalem”? (477). 


For truly Zion and Jerusalem and a very high Mountain (pos) 
of the Lord, and a House of the God of Jacob is that Divine crowd 
of the Orthodox Priests of God, who, with the Holy Ghost (πνεύματι 
ἁγίῳ), examined and defined, by means of the writings of the Prophets, 
and the Evangelists, and the Apostles, concerning the Word of Life 
—that is, the Son of God—that He is truly increate in the nature of 
the Godhead, and that He is not a creature, as the God-Fighter and 
impious Arius blasphemes against Him, and that He is of the same 
substance as the Father who brought Him forth before all the worlds, 
and of the same nature ; and they showed, likewise, most clearly that 
the Holy Ghost is of the same Divinity and Substance as the Father 
and the Son. And truly a lofty Mountain (ὄρος) of God is this ador- 
able (478) and holy rule (ὅρος) of the blameless faith, which, as our 
preceding discourse has shown, was given to us by the Lord him- 
self through the Apostles, and now is made clear by means of His 
Priests by testimonies of Scripture at Nicaea (479). 


SEcTION 4.—We inquire whether any Declarative Creed preceded the 
Nicene. 
By Declfrative Creed 1 mean a Creed in Creed form, as distinct: 
from the Baptismal Questions and Answers. 


Answer.—Yes ; that of Gregory Thaumaturgus did; but its use 
was merely local. And as Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical 
Lectures, delivered A. D. 348 or 349, speaks of a giving of a Symbol, 
and its return in the Church of Jerusalem (480), and as Rufinus 


(477.) Isaiah, II., 3. 

(478.) Here we have a paganized expression, for God alone is to be adored 
(Matt., IV., 10). 

(479.) Καὶ ἀληθῶς ὑψηλὸν ὄρος Θεοῦ, ἄνωθεν ἡμῖν, καθὰ προεδήλωσεν ὁ λόγος, παρ᾽ 
αὐτοῦ τοῦ κυρίου διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων δοθεὶς, καὶ νῦν διὰ τῶν αὐτοῦ ἱερέων κατά τὴν Νικαέων 
γραφικαῖς μαρτυρίαϊς τρανωθεὶς, ὁ προσκυνητὸς οὗτος καὶ ἅγιος τῆς ἀμωμήτου πίστεως ὅρος. 

(480.) See Cyril Hierosol, Catech. V., Sect. 12, and Catech. XVIII., Sect. 
21. Cyril does not, however, use the term Symbol (Σύμβολον) in either place, but 
the context shows that a Declarative Creed is meant, for it is traditioned—that 
is, delivered—and returned, and the Creed traditioned was always Declarative. 
In the first reference Cyril terms the Creed, πίστεν év μαθήσει καὶ ἐπαγγελίᾳ (“Faith 


330 Chapter VII. 


refers to a Declarative Creed—the so-called Afostolic—as in use at 
Rome from the earliest times, it is fair to conclude that such Creeds 
existed before Nicaea—probably each Church had its own—though, 
except Gregory’s, they do not appear in any ante-Nicene writing, 
because of the rule of reserye which prevailed on such matters. 


SECTION 5.—Does any author of a date anterior to Nicaea, A. D. 325, 
give any such Creed ? 


No; we know of none. Cyril of Jerusalem, and Rufinus, wrote 
after that date, though their language and the language of other early 
writers would lead us to infer that each of those Churches had its 
own local Creed before Nicaea, and that in fact every Church had its 
own local Creed ; for such a Creed would be naturally called for, for 
convenience in instructing Catechumens and in fortifying the minds 
of the baptized, and in keeping the chief truths of the Gospel in their 
minds. 

They were probably based largely on the Scriptural teaching as 
to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, into whom the Cate- 
chumen was to be baptized (Matt., XX VIIi., 19) in the Universal 
Church, into which they were admitted by baptism ; in the ove bap- 
tism for the remission of sins, which he was about to receive ; into the 
resurrection of the dead, which the emersion of the primitive trine 
emersion shadowed forth (Romans, VI., 5; Colossians, II., 12), as 
understood and explained by the early Fathers (481); and the life of 
the world to come, which belongs only to the baptized. 


in the form of a Lesson and a Declaration’’), and in the last reference he terms 
it distin@tly, ‘‘¢he Declaration of the Faith.”’ Yor he calls upon the candidates 
for baptism to return the Faith thus: “dad let the Declaration of the Faith, 


after it has been again recited to you by us, be returned and recited by you from 
memory, with all care, word for word” (Kai ταῦτα μὲν εἰρήσθω, πρὸς ἀπύδειξιν τῆς 
TOV νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως, ἡ καὶ τῆς πίστεως ᾿Επαγγελία, πάλιν ὑμῖν ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ῥηθεῖσα, μετὰ 
σπουδῆς πάσης ἐπὶ λέξεως αὐτῆς ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἀπαγγελέσθω τε καὶ μνημονευέσθω). So Catech. 
XI. Sect. 1, and Catech. XVII., Sect. 3, and Catech. XVIII., Sect. 28. See 
Touttée’s note ‘‘#’’ on the reference to Catech. V., Sect. 12. Yet Cyril uses Ἢ 
Πίστις in these Lefures, in the sense of Creed, again and again. See, in proof, 
Catech. 1X., Sect. 4; Catech. X., Sect. 4; Catech. XIV., Sect. 24 and 27; Catech. 
XV., Sect. 2, and Catech. XVIIL., Sect. 22 and 26. These, so far as we have 
seen, are the only terms applied by Cyril to the Creed of Jerusalem. 


(481.) See passages of the Fathers quoted in Chrystal’s History of the Modes 
of Baptism, pages 47-52, 61, 62, 70, 71, 72, ΘΙ ΠΣ ee 


Wicaea, A. D.325 Its Creed. 991 


As, after A. D. 325, the Ecumenical Creed of Nicaea seems to 
have supplanted such merely local Declarative Creeds in the East, 
they seem to have been gradually laid aside and lost sight of. How- 
ever, Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, has preserved to 
us some clauses of the Creed in use there in A. D. 347, 348 or 340; 
and Cassian, as we show elsewhere, has told us of some parts of the 
‘Creed of Antioch, in the latter part of the fourth century or the be- 
ginning of the fifth. But the Acts of the Ecumenical Council of 
Chalcedon, A. D. 451, show that the common creed, into which the 
Oriental prelates had been baptized, and into which they baptized, 
was the Nicene. But the case was different in the West, where the 
old short Roman baptismal Creed remained as such, and was ampli- 
fied as the centuries rolled on, till it reached its present form, as 
Heurtley, in his Harmonia Symbolica, shows, about A. D. 750 (482). 
Because it remained as the Occidental Baptismal Creed, we know 
more of its ante-Nicene form than we do of the ante-Nicene forms of 
the different local Creeds of the Orient. Bingham, in his Antiquities, 
Book II., Chapter VI., Section 3, argues that in the early times every 
Bishop was at liberty to frame his own local Creed in his own words, 
50 long as he kept to the Orthodox faith. 

The Roman Creed is first found in the Aquileian form in Rufinus, 
about A. D. 390. 


There is an early document which may refer to the Occidental 
Creed, but even that is after Nicaea. I mean Marcellus’ Confession. 


Charles A. Heurtley, D. D., Margaret Professor of Divinity and 
Canon of Christ Church, in his Harmonia Symbolica, a Colleéion of 
Creeds belonging to the Ancient Western Church, and to the Mediaeval 
English Church, * * * Oxford, at the University Press, 1858, 
page 22, remarks: ‘‘For the earliest complete Creed belonging to 
the Western Church, which has come down to us, we are indebted to 
an Oriental, and one too of more than doubtful Orthodoxy. It is the 
confession of faith presented by Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, in 
Galatia, to Julius, Bishop of Rome.’’ 


Dr. Heurtley, on page 24 of his work, gives A. D. 341, sixteen 
years after the Council of Nicaea and the adoption of the Nicene 
‘Creed, as the date of that confession of Marcellus. But that confes- 


(482.) Heurtley’s Harmonia Symbolica, a Colleftion of Creeds belonging to 
the Ancient Western Church, and to the Ancient English Church, pages 70-72. 


332 Chapter VII. 


sion resembles most that form of the Roman Symbol called the 
Apostles’, which, about fifty years later than 341, Rufinus reports. 
Nevertheless, it must be remembered that it differs in some respects 
even from that form of the Roman Symbol of the Apostles mentioned 
by Rufinus, and still more from that Roman Symbol which now we 
call the Apostles’, and that Marcellus does not give it as the Symbol 
of the Roman Church, nor does he assert that it isa Symbol, nor that 
it has been made in Symbol form by the Apostles. He gives it simply 
as his own (483). He says nothing of a Roman Creed, although in 
all probability it is true that there was in his day a Roman Symbol, 
to which Rufinus refers. It is possible also that in making a state- 
ment of his own faith he followed it. But we must not lay too much 


(483.) Speaking of the whole statement of Marcellus, of which this which 
Heurtley quotes as though it were a Creed forms part, Epiphanius, in his 
Panarion, on Heresy 72, remarks thus: Ei τοίνυν ὁ λίβελλος οὗτος καλῶς ἔχει, οἱ 
δυνάμενοι ἀναγνώτωσαν, καὶ οἱ δυνάμενοι ἀκριβῶσαι τὰ Ev αὐτῷ elpyuévar κοὶ εἰ μὲν κακῶς 
ἔχει, αὐτοὶ διακρινέτωσαν, Οὐ γὰρ βουλόμεϑα παρὰ ὧν, ἐπιστάμεϑα καὶ τῶν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλϑόν- 
των λέγειν. 

1 ἰταπϑίαίε. ‘‘If, therefore, that statement [of Marcellus] is sound, let those 
who can read [it], and let those who can, determine exactly what is said in it. 
And ifit is wicked let them determine it. For we do not wish to speak from 
what we know and from those things which have come to us.”’ 


Just below, Epiphanius seems to lean to the opinion that this statement of 
Marcellus is correct. See as above, in Migne’s edition of Epiphanius, Tome IL., 
column 387. 

But it is noteworthy that when certain disciples of this Marcellus set forth 
what bears as its heading the title, Ἢ ἐπιγραφὴ πίστεως τοῦ Μαρκέλλου, “to the most 
Venerable and most Holy Bishops of Diocaesarea,’’ to clear themselves from the 
charge of error, they refer only to the Nicene Symbol, thus: Οὗτε φρονοῦμεν, οὔτε 
πεφρονήκαμέν TL ποτε, ἐκτὸς THE κατὰ Νίκαιαν ὁρισθείσης οἰκονουμενικῆς καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικῆς 
πίστεως" ἤνπερ ὁμολογοῦμεν δυνάμει ταύτην φρονεῖν, ἀναθεματίζοντες τοὺς τολμῶντας κτίσμα 
λέγειν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Αγιον" καὶ τὴν ᾿Αρειανὴν αἵρεσιν, καὶ Σαβελλίου, καὶ Φωτεινοῦ, καὶ Ilaw~ 
λου τοῦ Σαμοσατέως, καὶ τοὺς μὴ λέγοντας τὴν ἁγίαν Τριάδα τρία Πρόσωπα ἀπερίγραφα, 
Κα ον dee 

I translate: ‘‘We neither hold any opinion at any time, nor have we held 
any opinion at any time, contrary to the Ecumenical and Ecclesiastical Faith 
which was defined at Nicaea, as to which we confess that we hold to it with [all 
our] power, anathematizing those who dare to say that the Holy Ghost is a 
creature, and the Arian heresy, and that of Sabellius, and that of Photinus, and 
that of Paul of Samosata, and those who do not say that the Holy Trinity are 
three uncircumscribed Persons,’’ etc. 


Further on in their statement these disciples of Marcellus embody the Creed 
of the First Ecumenical Council, that is, that of Nicaea, A. D. 325. 


Wicgea A. ΕΞ ΟΣ Its Creea. 333 


stress on this second point, nor base an argument on it, as it rests 
merely on conjecture (484). Nevertheless, it is probable that in writ- 
ing that part of his letter which contains this language so similar to 
the Roman local Symbol, he does follow that Creed. For he had 
been at Rome, as he states in this same Epistle to Pope Julius, one 
year and three whole months. It should be added, however, that 
this passage is but a part of his confession in this epistle. The reader 
can examine the whole document in Epiphanius; //evesy, 72. 


Rufinus, who first clearly mentions the Western Creed, wrote on 
it, as I have said, about A. D. 390. 


¢ 


The epistle ascribed to Ambrose, which speaks of the Apostolic 
Symbol, is of about the date A. D. 390 (485), and these two last are 
the earliest distinct mentions of the Western Creed. It is very 
doubtful whether any of the Orientals at Nicaea had ever seen that 
Roman Creed. We have no documentary proof of this. Indeed, it 
is not likely that many of them even understood Latin. For we find 
that when the Emperor Constantine spoke to them in that tongue it 
had to be translated into Greek in order that they might understand 
it (486). ‘That was not strange, seeing that the great bulk of the 
Bishops present were Easterns. So we find at the Fourth Ecumeni- 
cal Council, held at Chalcedon, A. Ὁ. 451, wuere most of the Bishops 
were Orientals, that a communication in Latin from the Placeholders 
of Pope Leo I. had to be translated into Greek before they could con- 
sider it. Greek, not Latin, was the great language of theology. 
When one reflects on the utter lack of any documentary proof for the 
notion that the Symbol of the 318 is based on the Roman, he will find 
cause for wonder that such an unfounded notion should have gained 
such credence as it has in the Occident, and the wonder is greater 
when it is remembered that we have the written claim of Eusebius, 
the Church historian, that the Nicene Creed is merely a modification 
of the fazth of Caesarea in Palestine, which he presented. He does 


(484.) That is clear from Heurtley himself, in his Harmonia Symbolica, 
pages 22-25. 

(485.) Hahn’s Bibliothek der Symbole (Breslau, 1877), page 20, has a Creed 
from an E.xplanation of the Creed, which is addressed to those to be initiated, 
by Ambrose, Bishop of Milan. Walch, page 63, gives almost exactly the same 
form, as from A Homily of Maximus of Turin, of century V., 72 Haplanation 
‘of the Creed. 


(486.) Eusebius’ Life of the Emperor Constantine, Book III., Chapter XIII. 


994 Chapter VII. 


not even mention the Roman local Creed. And other writers present 
at the Council, such as Athanasius, make no mention of the Roman 
Creed at all in connection with it. 


Section 6.—Js the Symbol of the 318 Holy Fathers of Nicaea an. 
amplification of the Western Creed, called the Apostles ? 


No. Notashred of authority for this is to be found in the 
Christian antiquity of the ast, which furnished the basis of the 
Nicaean Symbol (487). Jndeed, the Western Creed is mentioned dis-- 
tinétly as a Creed in no ancient author before Ambrose or Rufinus, and. 
consequently not till long after the Nicene. Such a notion has existed. 
to some extent in the West, but without any sufficient authority... 


As we have just shown, the First Ecumenical Council did not: 
take the so-called Apostles’ Creed as the basis of the Nicene, and 
develop the latter from it. On the contrary, the local Creed of St. 
Peter’s see of Rome, ‘‘ whch ἐς commonly called the Apostles’ Creed,”’ 
as the VIIIth Article of the Church of England has it, appears first 
clearly, according to Dr. Heurtley (488), in Rufinus’ ‘‘ Commentary 
on the Apostolic Creed,’’ called also ‘‘An Explanation of a Creed,’” 
about A. D. 390, as has just been shown (489); though, of course, it 
had been in existence at Rome—not in the East at all—in some form, 


(487.) Milman, in his A/zstory of Latin Christianity, Volume I., page 75, 
states that, ‘‘¢he East enacted Creeds, the West discipline.” The two Ecu- 
menical Creeds are certainly of the full Oriental type in the articles which they 
have. They are certainly not short like those of the so-called Apostles, that is, 
Roman. But the Ecumenical Canons were all made in the East also, so that. 
Milman’s remark is more rhetorical than exact. It is true, however, that the: 
West by its Reform, and condemnation of creature-invocation and image-worship: 
in the sixteenth century, saved Christianity from slavery to the Turkish unbe- 
liever. It is true also that two Westerns—Hosius, of Cordova, and the Emperor 
Constantine —were active and influential in procuring the adoption of the expres- 
sion ‘‘of the same substance,’ and that the West was almost unanimous for: 
Orthodoxy throughout the whole Arian controversy, whereas the East had an. 
active Arian minority; and nearly all the leaders of the heresy, as, for instance,, 
Arius himself, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and most of the rest, were Orientals. 
And the West nobly supported Athanasius in his struggle against the creature-- 
worshipping and Christ’s-divinity-denying Arians. 


(488.) Heurtley’s Harmonia Symbolica, pages 25-26. 


(489.) Canon Fremantle’s article ‘‘ Rufinus (3),’? in Smith and. Wace’s 
Diétionary of Christian Biography, contains interesting matter. 


Nicaea, A.D. 325°: 1ts. Creed. 335. 


an unknown time before. But when found it is quite different from 
the Nicene Creed, for it is in some respects shorter, and in others 
longer. How great and marked the difference between them is any 
one can easily see at once by comparing them, as I do below in another 
volume of this series. No ancient writer puts forth the absurd asser- 
tion that one was developed from the other. And when, far down in 
the middle ages, at the Ferrara-Florence Council of A. D. 1438-39, 
the uncritical Roman Cardinal Julian made that assertion, we find 
the Oriental champion, Mark of Ephesus, utterly denying it and add- 
ing: ‘‘We neither have nor have seen a Creed of the Apostles.’ See. 
in this work above, pages 26-32, for a translation of that place. ‘The 
Greek Church has never used any form of that peculiarly Western 
Creed which we call, commonly, the Apostles’. Indeed, judging from 
what Rufinus says in his Commentary on the Aquileian form of it, it 
should be called the Roman Creed, for there it seems to have origin- 
ated, and thence to have spread over the whole West. Heurtley 
shows that it is not found in its present full form till about A. D. 750 
(490). 

We see, then, 1, that the so-called Apostles’ Creed is not even 
clearly mentioned till about sixty-five years after the First Ecumeni- 
cal Council, and, 


2. That in its present form it does not appear in any writing till 
four hundred and twenty-five years after it. 


I will add, 3, that the internal evidence shows that the Nicene 
can not be a development and enlargement of the shorter Roman 
form, for in some respects it is fuller than the Nicene, and, 


4. That no ancient writer mentions the so-called Apostles’ Creed 
in connection with Nicaea. It is a late legend merely. 


Walch, in his Lbliotheca Symbolica Vetus, and Hahn, in his 
Bibliothek der Symbole, have each given us a collection of Creeds, 
Eastern and Western, from which we readily see that the Oriental 
Creeds which have reached us are fuller on the Son; and that we see 
at once is the type of the Nicene. Hence we easily learn that its 
basis seems to have been some Eastern document or documents, 
unless we say that it was drawn up on the basis of the words or sense 
of Holy Writ, without any reference to any preceding Creed. We 


(490.) Heurtley’s Harmonia Symbolica, pages 70, 71. 


336 Chapter VIZ, 


shall find Eusebius of Caesarea claiming that the Profession of Faith 
made by him at Nicaea was the basis of the Nicene Creed. 


We conie, now, 


SECTION 7. 70 examine the claim of Eusebtus of Caesarea in Pales- 
tine, that in his PROFESSION OF ΒΑΙΤΗ, offered at Nicaea, he 
furnished the First Ecumenical Council the basis of the Nicene 
Creed, and to consider in this connection the opinion of Valestus 
that Eusebius’ PROFESSION 7s the same as an Arian document 
which, Theodoret testifies, the Fathers of Nicaea tore up. 


We begin with the following question and answer : 


Qurstion.—What Bishop proposed the GROUND-WORK of the 
Symbol of the 318, and from what ecclesiastical province did this 
GROUNDWORK come ? 


Answer.—Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, the father of 
Church history, claims that he was the Bishop. The Ecclesiastical 
province to which he belonged was the First Palestine, of which 
Caesarea was, at the time of the Synod of Nicaea, the Metropolis, and 
to which Jerusalem, at this time called Ae/a, was subject. If we 
believe him, it was he who proposed its groundwork to the Council. 
But we will examine his claim and try to decide, so far as all the 
facts taken together enable us to do so. 


Happily we have Eusebius’ statement, preserved to us by one 
-who was at the Council ; that is by Athanasius, the celebrated cham- 
pion of Orthodoxy, then, however, only a deacon (491). Eusebius’ 
account is given in a Letter to the People of his Diocese, in which he tries 
‘to explain away his subscription to the Creed of Nicaea; ἃ subscrip- 
tion which, as events showed, was insincere and deceptive. Atha- 
nasius comments unfavorably on it in Section 3 of his Defence of the 
Nicene Definition (pages 6 and 7 of the Oxford translation of “" 5. 
Athanasius’ Treatises Against Arianism’’); and gives the whole episile 
at the end of that Defence (pages 59-66 of the Oxford translation just 
‘specified). It is found also in Socrates’ Zcclestastical History, Gook 
ΠῚ Chapter VIDL.; in Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History, Book 1., 
‘Chapter XII.; in Gelasius of Cyzicus’ work on the Council of Nicaca, 


(49t.) Socrates’ Zccl. Hist., Book I., Chapter VIII. 


Nicaea, A, D. 325: Its Creed. 337 
Book II., Chapter XXXIV., and in Nicephorus’ Ecclesiastical Fis- 
tory, Book VIII., Chapter XXII. A translation of it into English, 
with notes, will be found in the Zyeatises of S. Athanasius Against 
the Arians, Oxford, A. D. 1844, page 59. 


It is found in the original Greek in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, 
Tome XX., column 1535. 


We have seen that Eusebius of Caesarea was one of the earliest 
and strongest friends of Arius and his opinions. At the Council the 
formula which he presented was evidently designed to leave out the 
strongest and most decisive Watchwords of Orthodoxy, like the ex- 
pression, ‘‘ of the same substance,’ and to dodge the literal sense of 
other texts which affirm that the Logos has come owt of the Father, 
that is, ‘‘ out of His substance,’ and to take them in an Arian sense, 
though he admitted them into his formula, and besides he is careful 
to put into his Creed, with Arian intent, those words in Colossians, 
I., 15, πρωτότυχος πάσης xtisews, rendered ““ Furst born of every crea- 
ture,’ in our Common Version, which the Arian party perverted 
to teach that God the Word is a creature. As that clause is not in 
the Jerusalem Creed as given by Cyril of Jerusalem, of the province 
in which Caesarea stood (492), and as it is in no other ancient Ortho- 
dox Creed, it seems most likely that Eusebius introduced it with 
Arian intent only. We find it introduced in another new Arian 
Credal statement given us by St. Athanasius, evidently with the 
intention to wrest it to an Arian sense (493). I mean the Credal 
statement of the Arian party at their Council of the Dedication at 
Antioch in A. D. 341 (494). It has been ascribed by some to Lucian, 
who died a martyr in ‘A. D. 311 or 312; but Tillemont and Constant 
deny that it is his (495). Lucian has sometimes been deemed the 
father of Arianism, and was separated from the Church for a time for 


(492.) The Jerusalem Creed is found in Hahn’s Bibliothek der Symbole, 
page 62, edition of 1877. 


(493.). It is translated into English in the Oxford translation of S. Atha- 
nasius’ 7reatises Against Arianism, pages 106-108. The Greek is found in 
Hahn’s Bibliothek der Symbole (Breslau, A. D. 1877), page 184. 


‘494.) Id., page 134. 
(495.) Id., page 106, note ““ὁ.᾽ 


$38 Chapter VII, 


his views (496). His end was better than his life. Arius, in a letter 
to Eusebius of Nicomedia, the notorious Arian leader, terms him his 
‘*fellow-Lucianist.’’ See page 181 above. 


In the Macrostich, or long Arian Creed of A. D. 345, they quote 
the Septuagint of Proverbs, VIII., 22, ‘‘ Zhe Lord created me a. be- 
ginning of His ways for His works,’’ evidently in an Arian sense. 

Theodoret, like Athanasius, gives the following Epistle of Eu- 
sebius of Caesarea to his flock as a testimony from an Arian to the 
soundness of the Nicene Creed. For in his Zcclestastical History, 
Book I., Chapter XI., Theodoret introduces it as follows: 


‘“On account of the disgustingness of the Arians, who not only 
despise the common Fathers [of all Christians], but also refuse [to 
hear) their own Fathers, I wish to insert in this work the Epistle of 
Eusebius of Caesarea, which he wrote on the Faith, for it contains a 
clear condemnation of their raving. For though ¢hey honor him as 
of the same mind with themselves, they nevertheless contradict outright 
the things written by him. And he wrote the Epistle to some who 
held the errors of Arius, who, as seems likely, had accused him of 
treason [to them]. But the things written show best the mind of the 
writer.’’ 

Then he gives the Epistle below. 


We now come to Eusebius’ own statement as to his formula, and 
as to its being the basis of the Nicene Creed. 


I shall follow, in the main, though not wholly, the Oxford trans- 
lation of 5. Athanasius’ 7yeatises Against Arianism, page 59 and 
after. Ishall follow the Greek text in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, 
compared with that in Bright’s Socrates, and shall try to correct 
Newman’s translation by it, where he is capable of revision, that I 
may Claim, so far, to have made a new and improved Version. New- 
man, however, was a Greek scholar, and has done his work so well 
that it is only here and there that he can be faulted. 

“The Epistle of Eusebius [the Arian minded (497)| to the people 
of his Paroecia (498). 


{496). An account of Lucian may be found under ‘‘Zuctanus (12)’ in 
Smith and Wace’s Diétionary of Christian Biography. 


(497). The words in brackets are an addition. 


(498). That is, his Diocese, as we say now. But in the East in early tienes 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: SLts Creed. 339 


‘The things which have been transa¢ted on the Church’s faith 
at the great Council celebrated at Nicaea you have probably learned, 
Beloved, from elsewhere, rumor being wont to precede the accurate 
account of the things done. But lest in such reports the facts of the 
case have been misrepresented to you, we have felt under obligation 
to transmit to you, first the writing on the faith put forth by us, and 
then the second statement, which they gave out after they had made 
additions to our words (499). Our own writing, then, which was 
read in the presence of our most dear to God Emperor, and declared 
to be good and approved, ran in the following way : 


2. ‘‘As we received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in 
our first Catechisings, and when we received the bath and as we 
learned from the Divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught 
in the Presbyterate, and in the Episcopate itself, so believing also 
now, we report to you our faith, and it is this (500) : 


‘“““ We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all 
visible and of all invisible things. 


“(And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God out of 
God, Light out of Light, Life out of Life, Sole-Born Son, First 
Bringer Forth of all creation (501), born out of the father before all the 


Paroecia, from which our parish comes, was the ordinary term for a bishop’s 
whole jurisdiction, for though it contained many congregations, all of them 
were of the one sole parish of the bishop, and he supplied them all by his pres- 
byters, deacons, etc. See Bingham, under “ Parish,” ‘‘ Parish Bounds,’ “ Par- 
ish Churches,’ “ Parishes,” ‘‘ Parochia,’’ ‘‘ Parochial Churches.’ 


(499). Greek, as in column 1537, Tome XX., of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca: 
Τὴν ὑφ' ἡμῶν προταϑεῖσαν περὶ τῆς πίστεως γραφὴν, ἔπειτα τὴν δευτέραν, ἣν ταῖς ἡμετέραις 
φωναῖς προσϑήκας ἐπιβαλόντες ἐκδεδώκασι. 

(500). Migne’s Putrologia Graeca, Tome XX., column 1537—Eusebius’ 
Epistle to the Caesareans: 

Καθὼς παρελάβομεν παρὰ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν ἐπισκόπων, καὶ ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ κατηχήσει, καὶ OTE 
τὸ λουτρὸν ἐλαμβάνομεν, καὶ καϑὼς απὸ τῶν θείων Τραφῶν μεμαϑήκαμεν, καὶ ὡς ἐν τῷ πρεσ- 
βυτερίῳ, καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἐπισκοπῇ ἐπιστεύομέν τε καὶ ἐδιδάσκομεν" οὕτως καὶ νῦν πιστείοντες, 
τὴν ἡμετέραν πίστιν ὑμῖν προσαναφέρομεν" ἔστι δὲ αὑτη. Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἑνα Θεὸν, εἴα. 

(501). Id., Greek, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως. The Arians took πρωτότοκον to 
mean First Brought Forth, and applied the expression to Christ’s Divinity, and 
so made It a creature—so Eusebius probably took it. But the same word, with 
the same accent on the last syllable but one, means, a bringer forth for the first 
time or a first bringer forth, as we see by Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon, 
sixth edition, Oxford A. D. 1869; and so taken gives the lection of our translation 


340 Chapter VII. 


worlds, through whom also all things were made, who for our salvation 
took on flesh and lived among men, and suffered, and rose up on the 
third day, and went up to the Father, and will come again in glory to 
judge the living and the dead. 


‘“< We believe also in one Holy Spirit. 


‘““« Believing each one of those to be and to exist, the Father truly 
a Father, and the Son truly a Son, and the Holy Spirit truly a Holy 
Spirit, as also our Lord, sending forth His own disciples to preach, 
said: ‘Go, ye, disciple all the nations, dipping them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 


«Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and 
so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we are determined 
to contend for this faith unto the death, and we anathematize every 
Godless heresy. We witness before God Almighty and our Lord, 
Jesus Christ, that we have always held those opinions in heart and 
soul from what time we have known ourselves, and that we now hold 
and assert them in very truth (502), and we are able by proofs to 
show and to persuade you that in times past, also, we were so believ- 
ing and so preaching.’ 

‘3, That faith having been set forth by us, there was no place 
for any one to contradict it, but our most dear to God Emperor him- 
self first testified that it contains most correct sentiments, and he co- 
confessed that he himself also so held (503), and he was exhorting all 
to agree to it, and to subscribe to its dogmas, and to harmonize with 
its very utterances, with the addition of one expression only; that is, 
‘of the same substance,’ which, moreover, he explained by saying that 
he would not use the expression ‘ of the same substance’ (ὁμοούσιον) in 
the sense of the sufferings of bodies, nor to imply that the Son had 
come into existence out of the Father in the way of a taking apart, or 
of a cutting off, for the immaterial and intellectual and incorporeal 


above. Some of the orthodox, however, translate the word by First Brought 
Forth, as do the Arians, but differ from them in applying it to Christ’s humanity 
only. 

(502). Ibid; Ταῦτα ἀπὸ xapdiac καὶ ψυχῆς πάντοτε πεφρονηκέναι, ἐξ οὗπερ ἴσμεν 
ἑαυτοὺς, καὶ νῦν φρονεῖν τε καὶ λέγειν ἐξ ἀληϑείας. 

(503), The words, ‘and he co-confessed that he himself also so held,” are 
not in the above letter in the Greek of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, Books I., 
Chapter VIII., in Bright’s edition. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 941 


nature could not be subjected to any corporeal sufferings (504), but 
that it becomes us to understand such things in divine and ineffable 
senses. 

‘‘And such were the theological remarks of our most wise and 
most religious Emperor; but they, under pretext (505) of the addition 
[of the expression] ‘of the same substance,’ drew up (506) the follow- 
ing writing (507) : 

‘“ The Faith dictated tn the Council (508): 

‘“““We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all 
vistble and of all invisible things. 

‘* “4nd in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born out of the 
father, Sole-Born, that ts, out of the substance of the Father, God out 
of God, Light out of Light, very God out of very God, born, not made, 
of the same substance as the Father, through whom all things were 
made, both those in the heaven and those on the earth, who for us men, 
and for our salvation, came down, and took on flesh, put ora man, 
suffered, and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, and 
cometh to judge the living and the dead : 

“And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. 

“dnd the Universal [and Apostolic] Church anathematizes those 
who say, THERE WAS ONCE WHEN THE SON OF Gop WAS NOT, and 
HE WAS NOT BEFORE HE WAS BORN, and that HE WAS MADE OUT 
OF THINGS NOT EXISTING, 97. who assert that HE HAS COME OUT OF 
ANOTHER SUBSISTENCE OR SUBSTANCE [than the Father’s], or that 


(504). Id., col. 1540. Greek, ‘Evie μόνου προσεγγραφέντος ρήματος τοῦ ὁμοουσίου, 
ὃ καὶ αὐτὸ ἡρμήνευσε λέγων, OTL μὴ κατὰ TOV σωμάτων πάθη λέγοιτο ὁμοούσιον, οὔτ΄ οὖν κατὰ 
διαίρεσιν οὔτε κατά τινα ἀποτομὴν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑποστῆναι" μηδὲ γὰρ δύνασθαι τὴν ἀὐλον 
καὶ νοερὰν καὶ ἀσώματον φύσιν σωματικόν τι πάθος ὑφίστασθαι. It is the Emperor Con- 
stantine who has those ideas, as to the non-separation of the substance of the 
Logos from the Father’s substance—not the Ecumenical Council. Their sub- 
stance is parted, but their unity of thought and action remains as strong as ever. 
Eusebius of Caesarea had evidently learned such so-called philosophic notions 
from the Pagan philosophers. 

(505). Or, ‘‘ wnder the plea.’ 

(506). Literally, ‘‘sade.’’ 

(507). Ibid., ov δὲ προφάσει τῆς Tov ὁμοουσίου προσϑήκης, τήνδε τὴν γραφὴν πεποιῆ- 
κασιν. 

(508). Ibid., Ἢ ἐν τῇ συνόδῳ ὑπαγορευϑεῖσα. πίστις. 


342 Chapter VTL. 


THE SON OF GOD IS A CREATURE, 0% CHANGEABLE 07 CONVERT- 
IBLE [into some thing else].’ 


“ἐς On their dictating that writing, we did not let it pass with- 
out inquiry in what sense they used the expression ‘out of the sub- 
stance of the Father,’ and the expression, ‘of the same substance as the 
Father (509). Accordingly questions and answers took place, and 
the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And so 
it was confessed by them that the phrase ‘out of the substance’ is 
indicative of the Son’s having come out of the Father indeed, not, 
however, that He isa part of the Father. And with this under- 
standing we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious 
doctrine, teaching as it did that the Son has come out of the Father; 
not, however, that he is a part of His substance. On this account 
we also assented to the sense ourselves, and do not refuse even the 
expression, ‘of the same substance’ (τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου), peace 
being the object which we set before our eyes, and that we should 
not fall away from the right sense. 


‘6, In the same way we also admitted the ‘ dorz, not made,’ since 


they [the Council] alleged that ‘7zade’ is an appellative common to 
the other creatures (510), which came to be through the Son, to 


(509). Col. 1540 Tome XX., of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca: Kai δὴ ταύτης τῆς 
γραφῆς ὑπ᾽ αὑτῶν ὑπαγορευϑείσης, ὕπως εἴρηται αὑτοῖς TO ἐκ τὴς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ τὸ 
τῷ Πατρὶ ὁμοούσιον, οὐκ ἀνεξέταστον αὑτοις κατελιμπάνομεν * * * Kae δὴ TO EK τῆς 
οὐσίας "" ὡμολογεῖτο πρὺς αὐτῶν, δηλωτικὸν εἶναι τοῦ ἐκ μὲν τοῦ Πατρὸς εἷναι, Ov μὴν ὡς μέρος 
ὑπάρχειν τοῦ Πατρός. Ταύτῃ δὲ καὶ ἡμῖν ἐδόκει καλῶς ἔχειν συγκατατίϑεσϑαι τῇ διανοίᾳ 
τῆς εὐσεβοὺς διδασκαλίας ὑπαγορευούίσης ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς εἶναι τὸν Ὑἱὸν, ov μὴν μέρος αὐτοῦ 
τῆς οὐσίας τυγχάνειν" διόπερ τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ αὐτοι συνετιϑέμεϑα, οὐδὲ τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου 
παραιτούμεϑα. 

(510). Notice ‘the other creatures’? ( τῶν λοιπῶν κτισμάτον), that seems to 
imply that Eusebius classed God the Son among the creatures, and shows that 
he was an Arian still. No wonder that after this the Orthodox objected to the 
attempts of this Eusebius aud his namesake of Nicomedia, and the attempts of 
the rest of the Arian party to explain away the Nicene Creed, and to make it 
accord with their Arian heresy; and no wonder that those Arians in return 
plotted against Eustathius, and by their black-hearted malevolence and iniquity 
got him unjustly deposed. The story is told by Sozomen in his Acclestastical 
History, Book II., Chapters XVIII., XIX., XX., XXI., XXII., and after; see 
Chapters XVIII. and XIX. for their machinations against Eustathius, and the 
other chapters for their contrivances against other Orthodox Bishops. The 
story is told with a leaning towards Eusebius of Caesarea, and in a blind and 


IN7caeG, AD 3925 > tits Creed: 343 


whom the Son has no likeness. Wherefore (511), He is not a work 
resembling the things which through Him came to be, but is of a 
substance which is better than any work, and which the divine 
oracles teach to have been born out of the Father (512), the mode of 
generation being inscrutable and incalculable to every generated (513) 
nature. 


‘“7, And so, too, on examination reason approves the expression 
that the Son is ‘of the same substance as the Father,’ not in the way 
of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such by division of 
His substance, or by a cutting off; no, nor by any suffering or change 
or conversion of the Father’s substance and power (since from all 
such things the ungenerated (514) nature of the Father is alien), but 
because the expression ‘of the same substance as the Father’ (τὸ 
ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ) suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance 
to the made creatures, but that He has been made like, in all respects, 
to the Father alone who generated Him, and that He is not out of 
any other subsistence and substance, but has come out of the Father 
(515). And to that expression, explained in that manner, it seemed 


stumbling manner by the pronounced Origenist, Socrates, in his Heclesiastical 
History, Book I., Chapters XXIII., XIV.; (compare the chapters after for the 
plottings of the Arian party to which Eusebius of Caesarea belonged, against 
other Orthodox leaders). See also Socrates’ abuse of Eustathius, in the same 
work, Book VI., Chapter XIII., because he condemned justly his favorite, the 
heretic Origen, who was afterwards condemned in Anathema XI. of the Fifth 
Ecumenical Council. The events are more justly narrated by Theodoret in his 
Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapters XIX., XX., and especially XXI. and 
XXII. 
(511). Newmian’s text has ‘‘say they” after “‘wherefore.”’ 


(512). Greek, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεγεννῆσϑαι. I have rendered those words as 
they literally mean, but Eusebius of Caesarea, judging from his whole course, 
seems to have understood them in the forced and unnatural sense of ‘‘azade by 
the Father’’ as the other Arians did. 


(513). Here Eusebius uses ‘‘ generated”? (yevyti in Socrates here) in the 
sense of “‘made,’’ that is ‘‘created.’’ 

(514). Greek, τὴν ἀγέννητον φύσιν τοῦ Πατρός, in Socrates here in Bright’s 
text, | 

(515). Greek, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός. I have translated those words literally, ‘‘ou? 
of the Father,” as the Orthodox understood them; but I suppose Eusebius of 
Caesarea, as an Arian, would in his heart reject that sense, and take them in the 
forced and unnatural sense of “dy the Father” to get rid of the idea that the 
Son had actually come out of the Father. For throughout this whole document 


344 Chapter ΚΠ. 


to be well to assent, for we knew that among the ancients also some 
learned and illustrious Bishops and writers have used the expression, 
‘of the same substance’ (516) in their theological teaching concerning 
the Father and the Son (517). 


‘“8. Let these things, therefore, be said concerning the faith 
(518) which was set forth, for which all of us gave our voices to- 
gether, not without inquiry, but according to the senses specified 
when they were examined before the most religious Emperor himself, 
and confessed for the reasons aforesaid (519). And as to the An- 


he uses some Orthodox expressions in Arian senses, as the sharp and cunning 
men of his party were wont to do, that they might gull the Emperor and the 
less learned of the Orthodox, and hold their sees. Yet, as above mertioned, he 
implies plainly, in the very document above, that the Son is to be classed among 
creatures, in accordance, probably, with the Arian perversion of the sense of 
Proverbs VIII., 22, in the Septuagint translation. 

(516.) Greek, τοῦ ὁμοουσίου. 

(517). Id., col. 1541. Zhe Epistle of Eusebius of Caesarea to his Paroec- 
tans: Kara τὰ αὐτὰ δὲ καὶ τὸ ““γεννηθέντα "" Kai “ov ποιηθέντα "" καταδεξάμεθα, ἐπειδὴ 
τὸ ποιηθὲν κοινὸν ἔφασκεν εἶναι πρόσρημα τῶν λοιπῶν κτισμάτων τῶν διὰ τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ γενομένων, 
ὧν οὐδὲν ὅμοιον ἔχειν τὸν Υἱόν" διὼ δὴ μὴ εἶναι αὐτὸν ποίημα τοῖς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις ἐμφε- 
pec, κρείττονος δὲ ἢ κατὰ πᾶν ποίημα τυγχάνειν οὐσίας, ἣν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεγεννῆσθαι τὰ 
θεῖα διδάσκει λόγια, τοῦ τρόπου τῆς γεννήσεως ἀνεκθράστου καὶ ἀνεπιλογίστου πάσῃ γεννητῇ 
φύσει τυγχάνοντος. 

7. Οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὸ ““ ὁμοούσιον ᾽" εἷναι τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸν Ὑἱὸν ἐξεταζόμενος ὁ λόγος ovvia- 
τησιν, OV κατὰ τὸν τῶν σωμάτων τρόπον, οὐδὲ τοῖς θνητοῖς ζώοις παραπλησίως" οὔτε γὰρ κατὰ 
διαίρεσιν τῆς οὐσίας, οὔτε κατὰ ἀποτομὴν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ κατά τι πάθος ἢ τροπὴν ἣ ἀλλοίωσιν τῆς 
τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας τε καὶ δυνάμεως" τούτων γὰρ πάντων ἀλλοτρίαν εἰναι τὴν ἀγένητον τοῦ 
Πατρὸς φύσιν: παραστατικὸν δὲ εἷναι τὸ ““ ὁμοούσιον τῷ" Πατρὶ" τὸ μηδεμίαν ἐμφέρειαν πρὸς 
τὰ γενητὰ κτίσματα τὸν Ὑἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ φέρειν, μόνῳ δὲ τῷ Πατρὶ τῷ γεγεννηκότε κατὰ πάντα 
τρόπον ἀφωμοιῶσθαι, καὶ μὴ εἶναι ἐξ ἑτέρας τινὸς ὑποστάσεώς τε καὶ οὐσίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ 
Πατρός" ὦ καὶ αὐτῷ τοῦτον ἑρμηνευθέντι τὸν τρόπον, καλῶς ἔχειν ἐφάνη συγκαταθέσθαι" ἐπεὶ 
καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν τίνας λογίους καὶ ἐπιφανεὶς ἐπισκόπους καὶ συγγραφεῖς ἔγνωμεν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ 
Πατρὸς καὶ Ὑἱοῦ Θεολογίας, τῳ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου συγ χρησαμένους ὀνόματι. 

(518). Here we have ‘an instance of the use of πίσπεως in the sense of 
ONCE U, 


(519). This account we must remember is by an Arian, and is, to some 
extent, deceptive and unjust. St. Athanasius, in Section 3 of his /pistle in 
Defence of the Nicene Definition, referring to the above Epistle of Eusebius of 
Caesarea, (pages 6 and 7 the Oxford translation of St. Athanasius’ 7veatises 
Against Arianism) truthfully writes of that Eusebius, “He was ashamed at 
that time to adopt” the ‘phrases of the substance,’ ‘‘ Of the same substance,” 
and ‘‘ The Son of God is neither creature nor work, nor in the number of things 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 345 


athematism set forth by them at the end of the Faith (520), we deemed 
it to be a thing which should not pain us (521), for it forbids to use 
expressions not in Scripture, from which almost all the confusion and 
disorder of the Churches have come (522). Because, therefore, no 


generated, but * * * the Word is an offspring from the substance of the 
Father; and that therefore, in the above Epistle to his flock, he ‘excused 
himself, to the church in his own way.’? That way was surely an Arian one, and 
his own words show that he was anxious to excuse his own signature to an Or- 
thodox Creed by giving the false impression that the Orthodox understood that 
Creed, as an Arian would. He signed it, as we see from the testimonies given 
above and from that of Theodoret in Chapter VIII. of Book 11., of his Accles7- 
astical History, only dissemblingly and insincerely, and because he feared ex- 
communication. The venom and persistency of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and 
Eusebius of Caesarea, the Arian partisans, who signed the:Creed at Nicaea, was ἢ 
wonderful, for they did not give up the fight then, but commenced to plot and 
scheme at once and kept it up till they died, in secret where they could not be 
open, and openly where they could. 


(520.) Here is another instance where τὴν πίστιν. that is, ‘the Fatth,”’ is. 
used for ‘‘ the Creed”? of Nicaea. 

(521). ‘*.Straws,’’ says the old proverb, “‘show which way the wind blows.’ 
So expressions like the above show the Arian trend of Eusebius’ heart. The 
Anathema pronounced by the Universal Apostolate with the aid of the same 
blessed and savingly warning Spirit which taught the Apostle Paul to anathe- 
matize antecedently in Galatians I., 8, 9, all forms of Arian and other Anti-Gos- 
pel heresy, pains no Orthodox Christian man any more than Paul’s Anathema 
there pains them, for they know that it is God’s saving and needed warning to 
guard men against eternal death, which is the Christ-appointed reward of unbe- 
lieving Arianism (Mark XVI., 16; Rev. XXI., 8, and Matt. XVIII., 17, 18; 
and that that warning is given by the order of the ministry who are deputized by 
Christ in His Word to the task of teaching the whole church (Matt. XVIII., 17, 
18; XXVIII., 19, 20, and the Harmonies of the Gospels, where those passages 
are found, where we see that they were addressed to the Apostles alone, as are 
such passages also as John XIV., τό, 17; John XVL., 13). 

(522). Both the Orthodox and the Arians used terms not in Scripture to 
express their views; but the differences were : 

1. The Orthodox used fewer of such terms than their opponents did. See 
notes on that matter above. 

2. The Orthodox terms, which were not in the words of Scripture, were 
always in accordance with its sezse; whereas the Arian terms contradicted both 
its words and its sense. 

3. The Orthodox terms were put forth by the Court of Highest Resort, ap- 
pointed by Christ in His Word to settle all Church questions with the promised 
aid of the Holy Ghost, that is by the Universal Apostolate, and are therefore 
mediately through them authorized by Christ Himself—whereas the Arian 


346 Chapter VI. 


divinely-inspired Scripture has used the phrases ‘ owt of nothing’ and 
‘once He was not’ (523), and the rest of them [in that Anathema- 
tism], it seemed not reasonable to assert and to teach them, and to 
that [conclusion] also, as it seemed fair, we assented, since, moreover, 
we had not been accustomed to use those expressions in the time be- 
fore this. 


‘“o, Moreover, to anathematize ‘ Before He was brought forth He 
was not’ was not deemed out of place, because among all it is con- 
fessed that He was the Son of God before His birth in flesh. 


‘And our most dear to God Emperor had already proved, in his 
Oration, that He had existence by His divine birth which was before 
all the worlds, since also before He was actually born He was poten- 

“tially in the Father unbornly, the Father being always Father, as 
King also always, and Saviour always, being potential as to all things, 
and being always in the same respects and in the same way (524). 


terms were the outcome of the perverse thoughts of mere individual Bishops 
and others, who opposed the ancient faith of the Church and the decision of the 
Universal Apostolate in Ecumenical Synod assembled, and are therefore to be 
accounted by Christ's Law ‘‘as the heathen man and the publican,’ (Matt. 
XVIIL, 17, 18). Anti-Trinitarians generally forget these facts, and misrepresent 
matters endlessly. Even Eusebius of Caesarea, in the section above, admits that 
Arian terms specified by him as anathematized in the Creed of Nicaea are not 
in Scripture. 


(523). Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, Tome XX., col.1544, Eusebius of Caesarea’s 
Epistle to his Paroecians : Μηδεμιᾶς yor Ocorvevorov Tpagyg τῷ “ἐξ οὐκ ὀντων,᾽" καὶ 
τῷ ““ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ TY,’ καὶ τοῖς ἐξῆς ἐπιλεγομένοις κεχρημένης, κ. τ. A. 

(524.) Page 47 of the English translation of Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical H7s- 
tory, on that states of it that its “authenticity * * * 1s doubted,’ and adds 
in proof, ‘‘Valesius’ remarks upon its omission by Socrates and Epiphanius.”’ 
I here translate the place of Valesius to which reference is made. It is a remark 
on Section 9 of Eusebius of Caesarea’s epistle to his flock. That remark is found 
in column 1536 of Tome LXXXII. of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, and is as fol- 
lows: It is on the words above, “‘defore he was actually generated He was poten- 
tially with the Father ingenerately.”’ Valesius remarks: 

“In those words of Constantine or of Eusebius there is a manifest error. For 
the Word was not potentially in the Father before He was actually brought forth 
out of the Father. For, firstly, a? and power are not distinguishable in God. 
Secondly, from that assertion it would follow that the Word was not from eter- 
nity. For the rest of the creatures also were potentially in God before they were 
actually created. But they are not called eternal because of that fact. 

“Moreover, it is to be observed thatthis whole section is not to be found in 


Nitaea, A. D. 325: Lts Creed. 347 


“το. These things we have been forced to transmit to you, 
Beloved, to make clear to you the deliberation of our examination 
and assent, and how reasonably we resisted even to the last minute, 


Socrates, nor in Epiphanius Scholasticus. Socrates certainly seems to me to 
have omitted it purposely, and that because it contains a heretical sense.”’ 

Socrates, pronounced Origenist as he was, might naturally do that; for in 
Chapter XXI., Book IL, of his eclestastical History, and in Chapter XIII. of 
Book VI., he makes a labored attempt to prove that Eusebius of Caesarea was 
Orthodox, notwithstanding the strong testimony of St. Athanasius and of St. 
Eustathius that he was an Arianizer. Indeed, Socrates, in Chapter XXIII., Book 
I., of his Ecclesiastical History, expressly states that ‘‘ Eustathius, the Bishop of 
Antioch tears to pieces Eusebius Pamphili, on the ground that he put forth a 
counterfeit of the faith of Nicaea.”’ 

Eusebius does put forth a counterfeit of it in the above letter; for the Nicene 
Faith which he accepts in it is not that in sense which the God-inspired Fathers 
set forth. but one which he, an Arian, fathered unjustly on them. In his bitter 
hatred of its Creed, he, in conjunction with the notorious Arian leader, his name- 
sake, Eusebius of Nicomedia, plotted against Eustathius of Antioch, slandered 
him asif he were a Sabellian, and an enemy of Constantine the Emperor, and 
got him unjustly and iniquitously deposed and sent into exile. The facts are 
told by Sozomen in Chapters XVIII. and XIX. of Book I. of his Ecclesiastical 
ffistory; and Theodoret in Chapters XX., XXI. and XXII. of Book I. of his Accle- 
stiastical History, gives the details of the meanness and wickedness of the Arians, 
Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea, and their fellow-Arians, in 
their persecution of St. Eustathius. The facts told by Socrates in Book I. of his 
£cclestastical History, Chapter II. and in Book VI., Chapter XIII., witness to 
the good character of Eustathius and to his Orthodoxy. To the same effect wit- 
nesses Theodoret in two places in Chapter VII. of Book I. of his -cclesiastical 
ffistory. The accounts of both taken together testify that he was deposed from 
his see on the persistent and unsupported accusation of a hired unchaste woman 
that he was the father of her child; and that she afterwards confessed that she 
had slandered him; and that not the Bishop Eustathius, but Eustathius the 
coppersmith was its father. They tell how his people sympathized with him in 
his sore and undeserved trials. The Arian partisan, Philostorgius, refers to the 
deposition of Eustathius in Chapter VII., Book 11., of his cclestastical History, 
and adinits that the city where the Arian leader, Eusebius, was Bishop, ‘‘ Vico- 
media, was the workship where they [the Arians] contrived all their evil deeds: 
I quote Bohn’s translation. 

I ought to add that the Index to Bohn’s translation of Socrates, under 
“ Eustathtus,’? confounds the Orthodox Eustathius with the heretic Eustathius 
of Sebaste; the latter is meant on pages 130, 259 and 260 of that translation, as 
is expressly said by Socrates himself in the context of those places. I would add 
further that Socrates, in his partisanship for Origen, uses abusive language ot 
Saint Methodius, Bishop of Olympus in Lycia; of Saint Eustathius, Bishop of 


348 Chapter VII. 


as long as we were offended at written statements which differed from 
our own, but received without contention what no longer pained us, 
as soon as, on a candid examination of the sense of the words, they 


Antioch; and of Saint Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria; because they opposed 
Origen’s errors. But the Fifth Ecumenical Council vindicated those blessed 
men when, in its Anathema XI., it anathematized Origen and “any man who 
does not anathematize’’ him and his ‘“‘impious writings,’’ and classes him 
among the ‘‘fevetics,’’ with Arius, Macedonius, Apolinarius, Nestorius, and 
Eutyches, and anathematizes ‘‘¢hose who held or hold opinions like those of the 
aforesaid heretics, and continue in their own impiety to the end.’’ How far Soc- 
rates the Origenist, (perhaps also the Novatian), held to Origen’s opinions is a 
question which I have no time to investigate here. If he held them to the last 
he is undoubtedly anathematized in the above Curse pronounced by the Fifth 
Synod of the whole Church. 

Now as to the statement in the note above mentioned in Bohn that Epipha- 
nius has omitted Section 9 in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Epistle above to his Flock, 
I would remark: 

τ. Valesius refers not to St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia, in Cyprus, in 
Century IV. and V., but, as he shows in the note above translated from him, to 
Epiphanius Scholasticus, of the beginning of the sixth century. He translated 
the Ecclesiastical Wis/ories of Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret into Latin. 

2. He merely followed therefore the text on Eusebius of Caesarea’s Epistle 
to his Flock which he found in Socrates, and hence omitted Section 9 above. 

3. The article on that ‘Epiphanius Scholasticus,’’ page 159, volume 2, of 
Smith and Wace’s Diionary of Christian Biography, tells us as to his transla- 
tions that: ‘‘Cassiodorus himself revised the work, corrected its faults of style, 
abridged it, and arranged it into one continuous history of the Church. He then 
published it for the use of the clergy. * * * It was known as the Tripar- 
tite History.’’ In the form therefore in which Cassiodorus of Century VI. gives 
it, it is no wonder that Section 9 of Eusebius’ letter is omitted. For it was not 
in Socrates whom he was translating into Latin. 

Socrates’ designed omission of a passage in his Origenist favorite, Eusebius 
of Caesarea, to hide his Arianism here, would make us more ready to suspect 
that he has omitted a part of the Synodal Epistle of the First Ecumenical 
Council because it claims that the Council was guided by the Holy Ghost, and 
so was infallible in its condemnation, in its Eighth Canon, of the sect of the 
Cathari, that is the Novatians, to which it is thought Socrates belonged. See 
what I have said on that matter above, where I give Socrates’ and Theodoret’s 
forms of the Synodal Epistle of Nicaea. 

Before dismissing the note of Valesius above quoted, I would remark that 
his inference from Eusebius’ words above quoted that he was an Arian, because 
he believed in the non-eternity of God the Word, is true. For God the Word 
was not merely potentially but really and actually in God the Father from all 
eternity. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Lts Creed. 349 


appeared to us to coincide with what we ourselves have professed in 
the Faith above set forth (525).’’ 


Nevertheless the ancients, like St. Justin, the Martyr, Tatian in his Orthodox 
time, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, and Novatian even, and St. Zeno of 
Verona, held to the doctrine that God the Word was eternally in the Father from 
all eternity, but was not born out of Him till just before the worlds were made. 

Valesius contradicts hiniself when he says that act and power are not dis- 
tinguishable in God, for directly after he shows in effect that God the Father 
had from all eternity the ower to create all things, but did not do so, till about 
six thousand years ago he made the worlds. 

Theodoret did not agree with Socrates’ notion that Eusebius of Caesarea was 
a Trinitarian, but held with St. Athanasius, who knew him best, that he was an 
Arian. Indeed, Theodoret, in Chapter XI., Book I., of his cclesiastical His- 
tory, introduced the above Epistle of Eusebius of Caesarea as a sort of argu- 
mentum ad hominem to the Arians, because, that is, it is testimony tothe Nicene 
Creed from one whom they regarded as of the same mind with themselves. I 
have translated that place of Theodoret above. 


(525). Ihave translated from the Greek, and have largely agreed with the 
Oxford translation, but sometimes, for greater clearness and accuracy, have de- 
parted from it. In this place I may be allowed to take occasion to warn the 
young reader to be on his guard against the warped and partisan tendency of 
a few of the notes in some of the Oxford translations of the Fathers, especially 
in Dr. John Henry Newman’s translation of S. ATHANASIUS’ J7yreatises against 
Arianism, page 417, especially note “9. He went over to Rome not long 
after that. The virus of the creature-worship of the Roman Communion can be 
easily discovered by the attentive observer. Itis a pity that with much learning 
in some branches, almost all the Oxford school, including Pusey, Newman and 
Keble, were so deplorably ignorant of the relative superiority of the decisions of 
the Universal Church in the Six Ecumenical Synocs to the mere opinions (as 
distinguished from the his¢orical witness) of individual Fathers, and to the mere 
local decisions of the Occident. The men of that school with most knowledge 
on the Ecumenical data were Perceval and Palmer, of Worcester College. Even 
they, however, are defective in places in regard for some of the decisions of 
those Six Synods. Perceval, in particular, argues for the right of the local 
Church of England to set aside some excellent canons approved at Chalcedon, 
which are in harmony with Scripture, and with the observance of the Church 
since early and pure times. 

The notes referred to above have a tendency, indire€tly, to excuse creature- 
worship. Probably at the time they were written Newman had a tendency 
towards it. Compare the remarks of Bishop Kaye, of Lincoln, in his Account 
of the Council of Nicaea, Preface, page VI. In reading Newman’s writings I 
have been struck with the fact that from the very first he seems to have been 
ignorant or forgetful of the plain fact which every catechist of children even ought 
to know, and that is that the Roman Communion is idolatrous, because it 


960 Chapter ΨΩ. 


From glancing at this letter of Eusebius of Caesarea the reader 
will at once see,: 


1. That neither Eusebius nor the Council propose to enlarge the 
Creed of the Roman Church, such as when, after this time, it first 
clearly appears in history, it is found to be. 


2. Thatif by Faith, πέστιν, 1π the second section of this letter, Eusebius 
means a Creed, it must be that of Caesarea, of which he was Metro- 
politan, and to which Jerusalem, being an Episcopate in the province 


worships images painted, and images graven, crosses, altars, relics and other 
things, on the plea, like the heathen, of Relative Service, the very plea used by 
the heresiarch Nestorius for his relative bowing to Christ’s humanity, and quoted 
against him in his own words in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Synod, and 
made one of the grounds for deposing him; and that the invocation of the 
Virgin Mary, saints and angels is impliedly anathematized in Anathema VIII. 
of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s XII., approved at Ephesus, and in Anathema IX. of 
the Fifth Ecumenical Council against the Nestorian worship of the humanity of 
Christ. For surely if I may not give any separate worship, after the Nestorian 
fashion to the humanity of Christ, much less may I to any creature less than 
that perfect humanity, be it the Virgin Mary, or any saint, or any angel, or any 
archangel, or any other creature animate or inanimate, or to any mere thing, 
suck as a picture, statue, bust, relics, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, or 
any other mere thing. He seemed from the early times of the Oxford move- 
ment to have forgotten the fact taught him by the Homily of his own Church 
Against Peril of Idolatry, that as God cursed the Ten Tribes and Judah also, with 
division, with disaster, defeat, and captivity for such sins by the Assyrian and 
the Babylonian, so he cursed the Christian Israel with the same calamities for 
the same sins, by the Persian, the Arab, the Tartar and the Turk. In his blind 
desire for a union with idolatrous Rome he forgot the plainest lessons which God 
has taught all men; and finally landed in paganism and died the death of the 
idolater which Holy Writ teaches us is without hope. 

Even Palmer, who wrote on the Church, if I recolle@ aright differed from 
his own Church in not deeming Rome idolatrous. Nearly the whole of the lead- 
ers of the party to which Newman and Keble and Pusey belonged failed to wit- 
ness for God and the Six Ecumenical Councils on those vital points. Indeed 
while many of them had some Patristic learning I know of none of them who 
could be called well versed in the Ecumenical Decisions in those Holy-Ghost-led 
councils of Universal Christendom. Able as were some of them, as a school 
they were a woful failure because they built not on the rock of the Ecumenical 
Decisions, but on their private fancies and private interpretations as to Scripture 
or the Fathers. Their heresies are antecedently anathematized by the Six 
Synods, and the Anglican Bishops should anathematize their creature worship 
and other heresies, and those guilty of them, or be deposed. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 951 


of which Caesarea was metropolis, was at that time subject. 
does not use the word Creed, but only Fazth, here. 

3. That this Fazth (πίστις) presented by Eusebius forms, accord- 
ing to his claim above, the ground-work of the Nicene Symbol, that 
is, of the Creed of the 318. 

Indeed, much of the Nicene Creed, outside of its Anathema, may 
be found, word for word, in that presented by Eusebius of Caesarea. 
That is apparent from a glance at the Greek and the English of both. 
I have italicized the parts which are the same in both, and have put 
in capitals those clauses which the Ecumenical Council added to 
guard the Consubstantial Faith; for the Arian, Eusebius, had pur- 
posely omitted any statement of that tenet. Of those added clauses 
I will speak further on. Eusebius’ statement, part of which may 
have been (I do not say was) akin, in some parts, to the Creed of 
Caesarea and its comprovincial see, Jerusalem, the mother of all 
Churches, is as follows. For the sake of convenience and comparison 
and future reference we append, in parallel columns, three other early 
forms, but only the articles in them which treat of the Father, the 
Son and the Holy Ghost, because the Nicene has only those three 
articles and the Anathema, which is peculiar to itself. 


But he 


i; 


THe ΕΑΤΤῊ (7 Πίστις) of Eusebius, 
Bishop of Caesarea, exhibited at 
Nicaea, A. D. 


525. 
Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, 


παντοχράτορα, τὸν τῶν ἁπάντων ὁρατῶν 


Πατέρα 


τε χαὶ ἀυράτων ποιητήν. 
Kat εἰς ἕνα Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, 
τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον, θεὸν ἐχ Θεοῦ, φῶς 
2 a mY 2 - AGN 1 ᾿, "» " 7 
ἐχ φωτός, ζωὴν ἐχ ζωῆς, Yiov Movoyevi,, 
πρωτότοχον πᾶσης χτίσεως, πρὸ πάντων 
τῶν αἰώνων ἐχ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεγεννημμέ- 
πάντα, τὸν 
διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρχωΐδέντα 
χαὶ ἐν ἀνηρώποις πολιτευσάμενον, χαὶ 
ὌΣΣΟΙΣ ἘΠ Ξ ΞΕ ΕΟ ΤΣ 
παϑόντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτη ἡμέρα, 


χαὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα, χαὶ 


ΤΙ: 


THE CREED (τὸ Σύμβολον) of the 
first Ecumenical Council, held 
at Nicaea, A. D. 325. 


, 5 oO 
Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα 


Θεὸν, 


πάντων ὁρατῶν 


Πατέρα 
παντοχράτορα, τε χαὶ 
ἀοράτων ποιητήν" 

Kat εἰς τὸν ἕνα Λύριον Ϊησοὺῦν Xpro- 
τὸν, τὸν Vidv τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐχ 
τοῦ Πατρὸς Πονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐχ τῆς 
οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς, Θεὸν ἐχ Θεοῦ, φῶς 
ἐχ φωτὸς, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθι- 
νοῦ, γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσ- 
tov τῷ Πατρὶ, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, 
τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ χαὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς" 
τὸν O¢ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, χαὶ διὰ 


τὴν ἡμετέμαν σωτηρίαν χατελθόντα, χαὶ 


352 
Ὁ me ΄ 2  - - - νΝ 
ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ χρῖναι ξῶντας χαὶ 
νεχρούς. 


Πιστεύομεν χαὶ εἰς ἕν Πνεῦμα “ἅγιον. 


TRANSLATION. 
Ι. 


* Faith’ of Eusebius, Bishop of 
Caesarea, presented at Nicaea, 
A. 7). 325. 


1. We believe tn one God, the 
father Almighty, the Maker of all 
visible and of all invisible things. 


2. And in one Lord, Jesus An- 
ointed, the Word of God, God out 
of God, Light out of Light, Life 
out of Life, So/e-Born Son, First 
Bringer Forth of all creation, 
born out of the Father before all 
the worlds, through whom all 
things were made ; 


3. Who, for our salvation, took 
on flesh, and lived among men ; 


4. And suffered , 
5. And rose up on the third day, 
6. And went up to the Father ; 


Chapter VII. 


σαρκωθέντα, ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα, 
χαὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, καὶ ἂνελ- 
θόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, ἐρχόμενον 
χρῖναι ζῶντας χαὶ νεχρούς" 


Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ “ἅγιον. 


TRANSLATION. 
ide 
The Creed of Nicaea, A. D. 325. 


1. We believe tn one God, the 
Father Almighty, Maker of all 
visible and of all invisible things : 


2. And in THE one Lord, Jesus 
Anointed, THE SON OF Gop, born 
out of the Father, Sole-Born, THAT 
IS OUT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE 
FATHER, God oul of God, Light 
out of Light, VERY GOD OUT OF 
VERY GOD, BORN, NOT MADE, OF 
THE SAME SUBSTANCE AS THE 
FATHER, through whom all things 
were made, BOTH THOSE IN THE 
HEAVEN AND THOSE ON THE 
EARTH ; 


3. Who, for us men, and /or 
our salvation, came down, and fook 
on flesh, [AND] PUT ON A MAN; 

4. Suffered ; 

5. And rose up on the third day, 


6. And Went wp 
heavens, 


into the 


ζαξῶ, ae δὴ. 925: 11s Creed: 


7. And will come again in glory 
to judge the living and the dead: 


8. We believe in one Holy Spirit 
also. 


111: 


The Creed of Cyril, of Jerusalem, 
A.D. 347 or 348. 


1. We believe in one God, the 
Father Almighty, Maker of heaven 
and earth, and of all visible and 
of all invisible things : 


2. And in one Lord Jesus An- 
ointed, the Son of God, the Sole- 
Born, who was born very God out 
of the Father before all the 
worlds, through whom all things 
were made, 


3. He took on flesh,and put on a 
man. 


4. Was crucified and buried. 
5. Rose up on the third day; 


6. And went up into the heavens, 
and sat down at the right hand of 
the Father; 


7. And cometh in glory to judge 
the living and the dead; Of His 
Kingdom there will be no end. 


8. And in one foly Spirit, the 
Comforter, who spake in the 
prophets. = 


353 


7. [And] cometh to judge the 
living and the dead: 


8. And [we believe] zz the Holy 
Spirit. 


IV. 


The Creed of Rome, about A. D. 
390. 


1. [ believe in God, the Father 
Almighty. 


2. Andin Jesus Christ, His only 
Son, our Lord. 


3. Who was born by the Holy 
Ghost out of Mary, the Virgin. 


4. Was crucified under Pontius 
Pilate, and was buried. 


5. On the third day He rose 
again from the dead. 


6. He went up into the heavens, 
He sitteth at the right hand of the 
Father. 


7. Thence He will come to judge 
the living and the dead 


8. And [7 beliewe] zu the Holy 
Spirit. 


354 Chapter VII. 


The beginning of Eusebius’ Formula, and all its ending, both of 
which, taken together, form about three-fifths of it, are not at all in 
the Nicene Creed. In the Oxford translation the document is in 
twenty-nine lines; of which ten only contain anything like the Nicene 
Creed. ‘This is a great difference at once. 


On the other hand, Eusebius’ Formula wholly lacks the An- 
athema of the Nicene Creed, which constitutes, in the Oxford trans- 
lation, about five lines out of the entire sixteen of that Creed. Conse- 
quently the only comparison which we can make between the two 
documents is between ten lines of the twenty-nine of Eusebius’ 
Formula, and eleven lines of the sixteen of the Nicene Creed. Those 
two parts treat of the Trinity alone, and contain three great articles. 

(1) That on the Father. 

(2) That on the Son; and 


(3) That on the Holy Ghost, which is very short in both those 
documents. 


In those two parts of those two documents must we look, there- 
fore, for any verification of Eusebius’ claim made in his ήδη to the 
Caesareans, that ‘‘ The writing on Faith set forth by’’ him was given 
forth, with additions to his own words, by the First Ecumenical 
Council (526). 


If we are asked whether it can be positively determined ; 
whether (1) the Formula presented by Eusebius of Caesarea at 
Nicaea, or rather the ten lines of it which treat of the Trinity and 
are most like eleven of the lines of the Nicene Creed, were his own 
composition; 

Or (2), whether he took them from a Creed of Caesarea in 
Palestine and embodied them in his own formula or Profession of 
Faith; 

Or, whether (3), the Church of Caesarea had any thing nearer 
like a Creed than the few questions common in every Church in some 
form in Baptism and in making a Catechumen; and 


Whether (4), the Fathers at Nicaea really took those parts of 


(526). Eusebius of Caesarea’s /pistle to the Caesareans, Section I, column 
1537, of Tome XX., of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca: 

᾿Αναγκαίως διεπεμψάμεθα ὑμῖν πρῶτον μὲν τὴν ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν προταθεῖσαν περὶ τῆς πίστεως 
γραφὴν, ἔπειτα τὴν δευτέραν, ἣν ταῖς ἡμετέραις φωναῖς προσθήκας ἐπιβαλόντες ἐκδεδώκασι. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. ©55 


their Creed which are the same as parts of Eusebius of Caesarea’s 
Formula from it, or from the common statements of Oriental Joca/ 
Creeds which are now lost ; or whether they composed them them- 
selves; 

We reply frankly that we may theorize endlessly, but can not 
state anything Aosztively, because the facts necessary to answer these 
questions with clearness and adsolute certainty have perished. 


Nevertheless, we know enough to afford probability in certain 
respects. We will glance at the inquiries above specified in the light 
of the facts known, 


(1.) Is the formula presented by Eusebius, or the first eight 
articles of it, that is the parts on the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost, his own composition; or 

(2), Was it the Symbol of Caesarea in Palestine ? 

The facts bearing on these points are as follows: 

Caesarea, as has been said, was in the same ecclesiastical prov- 
ince as Jerusalem, and under the same Metropolitan (527). Situated 
so near to each other, founded in the same epoch, conversant with 
the same circumstances, it seems unlikely that the Caesarean Symbol, 
if one existed, differed so widely as does this from the Jerusalem 
Symbol found in the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of the latter Church, 
about A. D. 347 or 348, only 22 or 23 years after Eusebius offered 
his formula to the Council. It seems likely, therefore that Eusebius 
composed some parts of his formula. Neverthless, as a comparison 
with the Jerusalem Symbol in Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures shows, his 
form seems to have been affected and in places modeled by it or by a 
Caesarean Symbol like it. 

Now as to Question, (3), Whether in A. D. 325 the Church of 
Caesarea had anything nearer like a Symbol than the few questions, 
such as those which were common at that time and before, in the 
ante-Baptismal preparation, or questions of similar purport to them; 
in other words whether the Church of Caesarea had a Dedarative 
Symbol at that epoch ? 

Answer. Wecan not say with absolute certainty. The Jerusalem 
Church had one A. D. 347, 348, and, so far as appears, long before; 


(527). See Canon VII. of Nicaea and the remarks of Hammond in his 
“Canons of the Church”? on it 


356 Chapter VII. 


and the 46th Canon of the Council of Laodicea, which is commonly 
ascribed to about A. Ὁ. 364, directs that ‘‘ Those who are to be 
enlightened must learn the Faith (τὴν πίστιν), and on the fifth day of the 
week repeat [or ‘‘ tell’’ | τέ to the Bishop or Presbyters,’’ language which 
may mean a Declarative Creed, or perhaps the Baptismal Questions, 
or perhaps nothing more than the substance of Lectures or Instruc- 
tions. A similar direction is found in Canon 47 of Laodicea. About 
A. Ὁ. 390, Rufinus expresses the belief that the Declarative Roman 
Creed had come down from the Apostles, which is true if its sezse be 
meant, but not proven if its words be intended, but that belief implies 
that it had not been composed in his own era but was then ancient. 
We have written elsewhere on the Ante-Nicaean Symbols and Confess- 
zons, and hope to publish and must refer the reader to that. 


But the language of Canons 46 and 47 of Laodicea in Syria is 
too late to aid us in determining whether there was a Declarative 
Creed of the Church of Caesarea in Palestine in A. D. 325. Besides 
neither of those Canons uses the word Creed (σύμβολον), but only ‘‘ the 
faith’ (τὴν πίστιν). Besides in the period of the Arian controversy 
which was so fertile in new Creeds, we can not say that the Jerusalem 
Creed of A. D. 347 or 348 remained the same it had been in A. D. 
325. And what its form, or indeed that of the Creed of Caesarea in 
Palestine, was in A. D. 325, is not known. Furthermore, while I 
believe that each local Church had its own Declarative Creed in A. D. 
325, we can not say exactly what their forms were. 

We come then (4), to ask whether the Fathers at Nicaea really 
took those parts of their Creed which are the same as parts of Eu- 
sebius’ Formula from it, or from the common statements of Oriental 
local Creeds which are now lost, or whether they composed them 
themselves, or adopted them into the Creed from their use before 
among the Orthodox ? 


Answer.—That they adopted or composed part of them is clear 
from what Athanasius tells us in his Epistle to the African bishops ; 
that is, such expressions as ‘‘ out of the substance of the Father,’ and 
“of the same substance as the Father,’’ though, as even Eusebius 
admits, the latter expression was in use before; and, of course, they 
composed the Anathema at the end of their Creed. 


But whether they took the expressions which are the same in 
the Nicene Creed and in the Profession of Faith of Eusebius of 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 357 


».--͵ι.ὸ ὀ  ».Θς.-.ςςς-.-.-.--᾽- ὠ τ -ς-ς-ς- - -- τ΄ ὁ το τᾧἕᾧΤἃΤἃτ-------- . .Θ.Θ..- 


Caesarea from that Profession of Eusebius, or from their own Jocal 
Creeds, or made them up themselves, does not appear from any facts 
known to us. For though Eusebius of Caesarea states that they did 
take them from his Formula, their own accounts do not assert it. 
And it does not seem likely that they would pay much heed toa 
pronounced and inveterate Arian, like that Eusebius, who really 
deserved to be deposed. Yet there is, of course, a possibility that his 
influence with the Emperor Constantine may have induced them to 
pay some regard to his Formula, and to incorporate some parts of it 
into their Creed, inasmuch as those parts were probably the same, or 
nearly the same, as similar clauses in other local Oriental Creeds. 
No Orthodox writer asserts that the Fathers of the Council made any 
use of Eusebius’ Profession in drawing up their Creed. When speak- 
ing of the formulating of the Creed they do not even mention it, 
though, as we shall see, they mention Arian objections; and Ambrose 
mentions the rejection by the Fathers of a blasphemous Arian epistle 
of Eusebius of Nicomedia. ; 


The terms used of the Nicene Creed show that it was then dic- 
tated; for in his epistle to the Caesareans above, it is headed, 


“The Faith dated in the Council:’’ 


And again in the same epistle afterwards that Creed is called, 
‘‘ this Faith diétated by them.’’ See the Greek in notes above. 

St. Athanasius, in Section 3 of his ‘‘ Zfistle’’ to prove ‘‘ that the 
Synod in Nicaea, seeing the unscrupulousness of the Eusebians, set forth 
filly and piously its Decisions against the Arian Heresy” (528), men- 
tions how the Fathers at Nicaea dealt with the pet phrases of the 
Arians, and incidentally refers to Eusebius of Caesarea’s Epistle to 
the Caesareans. Athanasius compares the Arian tendency to deny 
Christ’s Divinity to that of the Pharisees, who said, ‘‘ Why dost thou, 
being a man, make thyself God ?’’ (John X., 33); and warns them that 
like those Jews they will be condemned for ‘‘zmpiety and lack of in- 
struétion’’ (529). He adds as follows: 

‘But let them rather search with a desire to learn, in order that, 
acknowledging those things of which before they were ignorant, they 


(528). Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, Tome XXV., columns 415, 416. 


(529). Id., col. 428; Section 2 of St. Athanasius On the Decisions of the 
Nicene Council. 


358 Chapter VII. 


may wash clean their own impious ears with the water (530) of truth, 
and with the dogmas of piety. For so also it happened in the Council 
at Nicaea to the partisans of Eusebius. 

‘‘ As they were impiously and quarrelsomely contending [against 
the truth], and were trying to fight against God, the things said by 
them were full of impiety. But the assembled Bishops (who were in 
number three hundred, more or less) mildly and man-lovingly asked 
them to give a reason and pious proofs for those things which they 
were asserting. But as soon as they once began to speak, they began 
tocondemn themselves, and began to war against each other; and 
seeing the great difficulty of their own heresy, they remained speech- 
less, and by their own silence confessed the shame which had come 
on their own wicked opinion. She Bishops, therefore, then negatived 
(531) the expressions contrived by them, and so set forth against 
them the sound and ecclesiastical faith (532), and after all had sub- 
scribed [it] the partisans of Eusebius (533) also subscribed to those 
[Orthodox] expressions which now these [Arians] fault ; I mean the 
expressions, ‘owt of the substance’ (2% τῆς οὐσίας), and the ‘of the 
same substance’ (τῷ ὁμοουσίῳ), and that the Son of God is netther a 
creature nor a work, nor of things made, but the Word is an Offspring 
out of the substance of the Father (534). And what is wonderful, 
Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had denied somewhat the day 
before, nevertheless afterwards subscribed, and sent a letter to his 
own Church saying that it is the Faith of the Church and the Tradi- 
tion of the Fathers, and he showed plainly to all that they were in 
error before, and were vainly and quarrelsomely striving against the 
truth. For though he was then ashamed to subscribe (535) to those 


(530). Or, “22 the stream,” vayuari. 

(531). Greek, ἀνελόντες. 

(532). That is, the Nicene Creed. 

(533). Eusebius of Nicomedia seems to be meant. He was the chief Arian 
leader. But Eusebius of Caesarea was one of his partisans. 

(534). Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, Tome XXV., col. 428; St. Athanasius 
On the Nicene Decisions, Se&tion 3: λέγω δὴ τῷ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ τῷ ὁμοουσίῳ, καὶ OTe 
pare κτίσμα, ἢ ποίημα, μὴτε τῶν γενητῶν ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Ὑἱὸς, ἀλλὰ γέννημα ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας 
τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν ὁ Λόγος. 

(535). Greek, ἡσχύνθη τότε ταύταις ταῖς λέξεσι γράψαι Τράφω seems to be used 
here in the sense of ὑπογράφω. Newman renders ‘‘¢o adopt these phrases.” 

γι 
The literal rendering is “20 write in those expressions,” or ‘with those 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 359 


expressions, and excused himself to the Church as he himself wished, 
yet he is willing to signify that much plainly, at least by his letter, 
by not denying the ‘of the same substance’ and the ‘out of the sub- 
stance’ (536). And he suffered something strange. For as he went 
on to excuse himself, he accused thereby the Arians of not being 
willing to grant that He was, even before his birth, in flesh, because 
they had written [the words] ‘ He was not before He was born’ (537). 
And that even Acacius knows, even though because he fears, he now 
for a season plays the hypocrite and denies the truth. At any rate, I 
have subjoined at the end the letter of Eusebius, in order that from it 
thou mayest know the lack of knowledge of the Christ-fighters, and 
especially the lack of knowledge of Acacius as regards their own 
teachers (538).’’ 

That is the letter of Eusebius, just quoted above. Here St, 
Athanasius makes no mention at all of Eusebius’ Formula in a place 
where we should naturally expect him to, if it had beem made the 
basis of the Nicene Creed. 


There are two documents mentioned as presented to the Bishops 
of the Council, and as rejected by them; and Valesius, has supposed 
that one of them, mentioned by Theodoret as below quoted, is the 
same as Eusebius of Caesarea’s Formula above. They are: 


1. Eusebius of Nicomedia’s blasphemous Epistle, and 
2. An Arian J/nstruction on Faith. 
Hermanus, as quoted below, thinks them both the same. 


expressions.’’ Neither Liddell and Scott in the sixth edition of their Greek, 
English Lexicon, nor Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon give swdscribe as a mean- 
ing of γράφω. So that it may be best to render the above Greek, not as in the 
text above, but in the literal sense above given in this note, ‘‘/o write with those 
expressions,’’ that is to use those expressions in his writing. Yet it is difficult 
to condemn either translation. 

(536). Greek, τὸ ὁμοούσιον καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας. 

(537.) Greek, Οὐκ ἦν ὁ Υἱὸς πρὶν γεννηθῆναι. Athanasius means that it was 
strange that Eusebius, in excusing himself, should so slander his own fellow 
heretics as to make them deny that the Logos had an existence before his birth 
ofthe Virgin. They admitted that He was before the worlds, but denied that He 
was eternal. 

(538). Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, Tome XXV., col. 428, 429; Sections 2 
and 3 of St. Athanasius On the Nicene Decisions. 


360 Chapter VII. 


Let us glance at them and try to form some correct notion as to: 
either of them being Eusebius of Caesarea’s Formula above. 


Hefele, in his W7zstory of the Christian Councils (Clark’s English. 
translation, Volume I., page 286), states that ‘‘.S. Ambrose says ex- 
pressly that Eusebius of Nicomedia submitted a heterodox writing to the 
Council’’ of Nicaea. I find the place to which Hefele refers in Am- 
brose’s work oz Faith addressed to the Emperor Gratian, Book III., 
Chapter XV. (column 639, Tome XVI., of Migne’s Patrologia 
Latina). 1 translate it from the Latin: 


‘‘For what other reason is there why they [the Arians] should 
refuse to say that the Son is of the same substance [ὁμοούσιον] as the 
Father, except that they are not willing to confess that He is the 
real Son of the Father? As an author of their own, Eusebius of 
Nicomedia, shows when he writes in his Epistle: 


“ΕΟ Tf” saith he, ‘we say that 476 ἐς the Son of God, and uncreated, 
we begin to say that He ts of the same substance as the Father.’ 


‘“When that Epistle was read in the Council of Nicaea, the 
Fathers put that expression [‘ of the same substance’|in their Creed, 
because they saw that their adversaries feared it, so that with it they 
cut off the head of an abominable heresy as with a sword drawn by 
themselves (539).’’ 


On the above, note 89, column 639, of Tome XVI., of Migne’s 
Patrologia Latina states: 


“ΤΕ is doubted among learned men what that Epistle of Eusebius 
of Nicomedia is, of which mention is here made by Ambrose. Her- 
manus, in Book II. of the Life of St. Athanasius, Chapter VIII., 
after Cardinal Baronius, at the year 325, thinks that it is that Epistle 
which Theodoret mentions in Book I., Chapter VIII. [of his Accles?- 
astical History], in Valesius’ edition. Indeed, Valesius, on the same 


(539). Column 639, Tome XVI., of Migne’s Patrelogia Latina; St. Am- 
brose, Bishop of Milan’s, work De Fide, Lib. III., Cap. XV.: Nam quid est 
aliud, cur ὁμοούσιον Patri nolint Filium dici, nisi quia nolunt Verum Dei Filium 
confiteri? Sicut auctor ipsorum Eusebius Nicomediensis epistola sua prodidit, 
scribens: Si verum, inquit, Dei Filium et increatum dicimus ὁμοούσιον cum Pater 
[Patre?] incipimus confiteri. Haec cum lecta esset epistola in concilio Nicaeno, 
hoc verbum in tractatu Fidei posuerunt Patres, quia id viderunt adversariis esse 
formidini; ut tanquam evaginato ab ipsis gladio ipsorum nefandae caput haereseog 
amputarent. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: + Its Creed. 361 


place, contends that that place of Theodoret is to be understood not: 
of an Epistle of Eusebius of Nicomedia, but of the statement on the 
Faith which was offered to the Fathers of the Council by Eusebius of 
Caesarea, and he brings some reasons for that view; which, however, 
do not seem to be so convincing as to free his opinion from all diffi-- 
culty. But whatever be the truth as to that matter, it is certain that 
Ambrose speaks in this place not of a formula or statement of faith,, 
but of an epistle.”’ 

The £pistle of Eusebius of Nicomedia referred to may be that 
given by Theodoret in Chapter V. of Book I. of his Zcclestastical 
Ffistory, where, writing to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre, he strongly con- 
tends against the doctrine that the Son is of the same substance as the 
Father, and asserts that He is α creatureand * * * @ work, so 
far as Hs substance is concerned, and he grounds that view on the 
Arian perversion of the Septuagint Version of Proverbs, VIII., 22, 
and after (540). It is true that the exact words of Ambrose’s quota- 
tion may not be there, but their sense is, and it is not certain that he: 
meant to give the exact words. It wasa common thing among the 
ancients, as, indeed, it is in Holy Writ sometimes, to quote rather 
the sense than the exact words of a passage. ‘This ts especially true: 
here and there where a Latin Father is quoting a Greek writer whose: 
works had not all been rendered into Latin. I think it was that 
Epistle of Eusebius of Nicomedia which, Theodoret, as below quoted, 
tells us, the Fathers tore up. It does not seem at all probable that it 
was the Profession of Eusebius of Caesarea, 


1. Because it is not an ‘‘ Zpzst/e’’ at all, nor in Epistle form, but. 
is what it purports to be, a Profession of Faith: 


2. Because no such words as those mentioned by Ambrose in the: 
above quotation are found in it. 


I here translate from Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History, Book I., 
Chapter V., the Epistle referred to: 

“45 Epistle of Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, Bishop 
of Tyre. 

‘To my lord Paulinus, Eusebius wisheth joy in the Lord. 


(540). Col. 913, Tome LXXXII., of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca: Theo- 
doret, Bishop of Cyrus’ £cclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter V. 


362 Chapter VII. 


‘The zeal of my lord Eusebius (541) for true doctrine is not 
unknown, but hath reached even to us, and so hath thy silence, my 
lord. And, as was a natural consequence, we were gladdened respect- 
ing my lord Eusebius, but were grieved concerning thee; for we 
deemed even the silence of such a man [as thou art] to be a loss. 
Wherefore I exhort thee, inasmuch as thou knowest how unbefitting 
a thing it is for a sensible man, who hath stirred up his spirit and his 
mind to write, to hold views which are alien (542) and to be silent 
as to those views which are true, make a beginning concerning that 
matter, and profit both thyself and thy hearers, especially because 
thou art willing to write in accordance with the Scripture and to 

‘keep to the leadings of its words and their meanings (543). For we 


(541). In Bagster’s translation here and in Bohn’s we find ‘‘ Paulinus”? 
wrongly; which is clear from the next mention of Eusebius below. Migne’s 
text here has Zusebius, and the Various Lections, which he gives on the same 
page with it, do not even mention Paulinus in this place, or any thing but Zwse- 
éius. The Eusebius referred to is the noted Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, the 

‘Church historian, who, as Athanasius shows, was a determined Arian. 


(542). He means the Orthodox views, which are alien to Arianism. 


(543). Here this noted Arian, while professing respect for the /e¢ter, and 
‘the meaning of Scripture, departs from both. For he and his party departed 
from the letter of Scripture by bringing in such non-Scriptural terms, as Athan- 
-asius shows, as: 
(1). ‘ Out of nothing.” 
(2). ‘‘ The Son was not before His generation.”’ 
(3). ‘‘ Once He was not.” 
(4). ‘‘ He 75 alterable.”’ 
(5). ‘‘ Pre-existence.”’ 
(6). 212 the will.”? 
(7.) ‘‘ The Father is ineffable and invisible to the Son,” and 
(8). ‘‘ The Son knows not even His own Substance.” 
(Athanasius’ 7yeatises Against Arianism, Oxford translation, pages 1, 30, 
133 and 257). On page 133, St. Athanasius says, justly, that when the Arians 
reject the Nicene statement that ‘‘¢e Son has come out of the Father's sub- 
stance,’ on their plea, ‘‘¢his 7s not written; and we reject these words as un- 
scriptural: that ‘this is an unblushing excuse in their mouths. For tf they 
think everything must be rejected which is not written, wherefore, when the 
Arian party invent such a heap of phrases, not from Scripture, as ‘Out of nothing;’ 
and, ‘The Son was not before His generation ;’ avd, ‘Once He was not;’ and, 
‘He is alterable;’ avd, ‘The Father is ineffable and invisible to the Son ;’ avd, 
<The Son knows not even His own substance ;’ avd all that Arius has vomited 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 363 


have neither heard that there are two ungenerated beings (544), nor 
that the One ungenerated Being (545) has been separated into Two; 


in his light and irreligious Thalia, why do they not speak against these, but 
rather take thetr part ?”’ 

On page 31, St. Athanarius pertinently asks regarding the Arians: 

‘Why then, when they have invented on their part unscriptural phrases, 
for the purposes of irreligion, do they accuse those who are religious in their 
use of them ?’’ 

On page 36, and before, he argues that the Arians themselves had first used 
terms not in Scripture, and that to teach heresy: 

“* They set the example, beginning their war against God with words not in 


Scripture.’? 
And again, on page 257, referring to the Arian citation of certain texts, and 


their perversion of them to make them favor their denial of the Word’s full 
Divinity, he thus writes of how they used Scripture language in a wrong 
meaning: 

“These passages they brought forward at every term, mistaking their sense, 
under the idea that they proved that the Word of God was a creature and a work, 
and one of things made, and thus they deceive the thoughtless, making the lan- 
guage of Scripture their pretence, but instead of the true sense sowing upon it 
the poison of their own heresy.”’ 

The truth is that while an Ecumenical Synod must ever hold to the sense of 
Scripture, it may, in the case of new heresies, invent or adopt any term or terms 
which the novelty of the heresy and the needs of the case demand, and it has 
the Christ-promised aid of the Holy Ghost in doing so. Hefele in his //zstory 
of the Christian Councils, Volume I., Clark’s English translation, page 291, note 
1, has the following pertinent passage from Volume IV., of Neander’s Church 
Fistory: 

“The defenders of the Homoousion could say, It was not necessary to 
make use of merely Scriptural expressions, but to teach Bible doctrine, although, 
in other words. New circumstances might render new forms of expression ne- 
cessary for the development and defence of Biblical truth, and the fear of unbib- 
lical expressions might serve to hinder the refutation of doctrines which were 
unbiblical in their essence and spirit.’’ « 

The Anti-Trinitarian sects of our day, like those of Athanasius’ time, while 
carping at expressions which are in the sewse of Scripture, nevertheless use 
many terms which are not in Scripture, and which contradié& its sense: so that 
after all what at bottom they object to is not so much such expressions as “ΟΣ 
the same substance with the Father,’’ as the Orthodox and Scriptural sense 
which they convey. 

(544). Here heslurs the Orthodox doétrine that the Logos is ternal God, 
as though it meant that He was not born out of the Father, but is unborn. He 
misrepresents if he means to imply that any of the Orthodox held Him to be 
unborn. 

(545). God, the Father. 


364 Chapter VII, 


nor have we learned or believed, my lord, that He hath endured any 
bodily suffering (546). But the ungenerated (547) is one, and the 
One who was really made (548) by Him, and not out of His substance 
(549), is another, who does not at all partake of the Nature of the 
Ungenerated One (550), nor has He come out of His substance (551), 
but He was made utterly other [than the ungenerated God] in His 
nature (552) and in His power, though He was made in a perfect 
likeness of the disposition and the power of Him who has made Him 


(546). Here he implies that if God the Word was born out of the impassible 
Father, then the Father must have suffered in that bringing forth as passible 
women do in bringing forth mortal sons! The blasphemy of Eusebius’ state- 
ment is self-evident, for all the Orthodox agree that the Divine Nature is impas- 
sible, and hence that neither the Father nor the Logos suffered in that birth 
before all the worlds by which the Endiathetic Logos, according to St. Justin 
the Martyr, and St. Theophilus, of Antioch and Tertullian, became Prophoric. 
Besides in that birth the Logos was not born out of what mortal men are born 
out of, for the Father is not a woman nor has He the pudenda of a woman; for 
even to imply that, as the wicked Eusebius of Nicomedia here does, is shocking 
blasphemy. No wonder therefore that when the above Epistle was read to the 
Fathers of Nicaea, they were horrified at such sacrilegious inuendos against 
both the Father and the Son, and tore it up. As the ancients held, and as will 
be shown in the proper place, the Son’s birth consisted in His being breathed out 
of the Father’s mouth. But Eusebius of Nicomedia, like his fellow-Arian, Euse- 
bius of Caesarea, and Arius himself, evidently held to Origen’s view that God 
has no body and hence blundered endlessly. Some of the Orthodox held that 
He has a body, while some others before Origeu’s condemnation, by the Fifth 
Ecumenical Synod, were, to some extent, disposed to follow him. 

(547). God, the Father. 

(548). Here this Arian in effect teaches that the Son is a creature; for if He 
were ‘‘veally made’’ He would necessarily be so. 

(549). Here we have a plain denial of the Consubstantiality of the Son 
with the Father. 

(550). That is, according to this Arian, He is utterly unlike the Father in 
Nature, and hence not God at all, but a mere creature, and hence all worship of 
Him is mere worship of a creature, and so is against Matthew IV., Io. 

(551). Here he denies the plain teachings of Christ Himself in John VIIL., 
42, “7 came out of God,;”’ and in John XVL., 28, “7 came out of the Father,;” 
and the consequent truth stated by the Holy Ghost through the Apostle Paul, 
that the Logosis ‘‘ Character of His [the Father’s] Substance.” 

(552). Here we find blasphemy repeated and piled on blasphemy; for again 
this Eusebius makes the Logos to be made and of a nature uiterly unlike the 
Father. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creéd. 365 


— —— —— . 


(553). We have believed that His beginning can not be told in word; 
no, not even in thought, either by men or by any of those beings who 
are above men. We have believed it to be incomprehensible. We 
do not put forth these assertions as our own reasonings; but having 
learned them from the divine Scripture, we say that He was created 
and founded, and was made, as respects His substance, and that, too, 
with an unchangeable and ineffable nature, and with His likeness to 
Him who has made Him, as the Lord Himself says: ‘ God created 
me a beginning of His ways, and He founded me before the world, and 
fle brings me forth before all the hills’ (554). 

‘‘But if He had come out of Him (555), that is, from Him, as a 
part of Him (556), or as an outflow from His substance (557), He 
could not in that case be said to be created or founded (558); and of 


(553). All this stuff still leaves the Eternal Logos a creature and so makes 
His worship mere Creature-Worship, and hence ends in Creature-Worship and 
Paganism contrary to Matthew IV., 10. For all the Orthodox held that if He be 
a creature He can not be worshipped; and that Hebrews I., 6, shows that He is 
God because he is to be worshipped. See Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria 
on that text. 


(554). This passage in the Septuagint Version of Proverbs VIII., 22, 23 and 
25 was the great stock in trade of the Arian party, and they so perverted it as to 
make it contradict the express teachings of the New Testament that the Logos 
has actually come out of the Father’s substance and is ‘“ Character of His Sub- 
stance’? (John VIII., 42, and John XVI., 28, and Hebrews I., 3), and hence is no 
creature. 


(555). Greek,é& αὐτοῦ. Here he attempts, but weakly and ineffectively, to 
meet the Orthodox argument from Christ’s own clear statement in John XVI, 
28, that the Logos has ‘‘come out of the Father,’’ and hence is ‘‘ Character of 
His Substance’’ (Hebrews 1., 3). 


(556). Greek, ὡς ἂν μέρος αὐτοῦ. Tertullian teaches that the Logos is a Part 
of God, as we show elsewhere, and so do St. Justin, the Martyr, and St. Theo- 
philus of Antioch, both of whom were long before Arius and before this Arian 
Eusebius. 


(557). Greek, ἢ ἐξ ἀποῤῥοίας τῆς οὐσίας. The Orthodox, following Tertullian, 
as quoted elsewhere in this work, did not hesitate to use that metaphor to de- 
-scribe the actual birth of the Son out of the Father. 


(558). Here again he refers to the Arian pet perversion of the Septuagint of 
Proverbs VIII., 22, 23 and 25. All the Orthodox met that perversion by starting 
with the plain teachings of John VIIL., 42, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλϑον, and John XVI, 28, 
ἐξῆλϑον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, that God the Word has a¢tually come out of God the Father; 
_and with the clear assertion of Hebrews I., 3, that He is ‘‘ Character of His [the 


366 Chapter VII. 


that, my lord, thou thyself art surely not ignorant. For that which 
has come out of the Ungenerated one (559) can not be created by 
another or by Him, or founded (560), because it would be wxgenerated 
from the beginning (561). Butif His being called generated (562) 
convey some idea that He was born out of the Father's substance, and. 
that He has from that fact the identity of His [the Father’s] Nature; 


Father’s| Substance,” Χαρακτὴρ τὴς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ. Then they interpreted Prov- 
erbs VIII., 22, 23 and 25, by those clear statements. But some of them applied 
to Christ’s humanity the expressions of the Septuagint of Proverbs VIII., 22, 23, 
24 and 25; ‘‘ The Lord created me [the] beginning of His ways for His Works. 
Before the worlds He founded me, in the beginning before He made the earth, 
and before He made the deeps, before the fountains of the waters came forth, be- 
Sore the mountains were settled, and before all hills he brings Me forth.” 

But others, I think, with far greater wisdom and logic, applied them to the 
birth of God the Word out of the Father’s mouth, just before the worlds were 
made; by which birth the Logos’, as Tertullian teaches as quoted elsewhere, 
who before had been eternally in the Father, as a Part of the Consubstantial 
Divinity was dorne forth out of Him, and by that birth became His Son. For 
before, though He was the Logos Consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father, 
He was not born out of Him, and hence, as Tertullian teaches, He was not the 
Son till that birth occurred, nor was the Father a Father before that birth, 
though of course he was eternal God, for that birth made him a Father and 
made the Logos a Son. For every birth necessarily makes a Father and a Son. 
Hence, as the letter of Arius, on page 185 above, to Eusebius, of Nicomedia, 
shows, the Orthodox could justly say that the uncreated Logos, who had existed 
before from all eternity, was by that birth created up into a Son. Just as we use 
the terms created and founded of the giving of new titles to a man who existed 
before. Forinstance an English monarch, or his representative created Lord 
Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, and his dukedom was founded by that. 
monarch. Sothe Father created His co-eternal Logos a Son when He breathed. 
Him forth out of His mouth just before the worlds were made; and so then. 
Sounded not His being, but His Sonship. This seems to me the best way to meet: 
the Arian cavil on those words. And it is amply warranted by the aforesaid two, 
passages from John, and from Hebrews I., 3, and by the expression in the end of’ 
that passage of Proverbs VIII., ‘‘ He brings me forth.” 


(559). God the Father. 
(560). Proverbs VIII., 23, Septuagint. 


(561). Greek, ἀγέννητον. Here we see that Eusebius is using this term in 
the sense of ‘‘unmade,’’ that is: ‘‘uncreated.”’ 


(562). Greek, τὸ γεννητόν. Eusebius uses this term not in its sense of brought: 
JSorth, but of generated in the sense of made, that is produced or created. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Tis Creed. 367 


Deen ee eee ee ee na 


we know that the Scripture uses the expression geverated (563), not 
of Him alone, but also of things unlike Him in all respects, as re- 
gards their nature. For, speaking of men, it says 7 have generated 
(564) and exalted sons (565), but they have set me aside’ (566), and 
‘Thou hast forsaken the God who generated (567) thee’ (568): and of 
other things [than men] it says: ‘Who brought forth (569) the drops 
of dew ?’ (570) not implying the idea of the coming of their nature 
out of God’s nature, but the production by His will of each one of the 
things [thus] made. For nothing has come out of His substance; 
but all things were made by His will, and each as it became 
and is. For God [is self-existent]; but those things which are after 
His likeness are to be made like His Word, whereas the other things. 
have been made according to His [the Son’s] own free choice. And 
all things were made by God through Him, and all things are from. 
God (571). ‘Take these very ideas and elaborate them according to: 


(563). ‘Greek, τὸ γεννητόν, Eusebius is here trying to prove that the words: 
in the Septuagint of Proverbs VIII., 25, ‘‘Before all hills He brings Me forth 
(γεννᾷ ve) are not to be understood in the sense that God the Father brought forth 
the Logos then out of His own substance, but that He created Him. 

(364). Greek, υἱοὺς ἐγέννησα καὶ ὕψωσα, 

(565). Or, ‘‘ brought up.” 

(566). Isaiah I., 2, Septuagint. 

(567). Θεὸν τὸν γεννήσαντά σε, 

(568). Deut. XXXII, 18. 

(569). Greek, ὁ τετοκώς, 

(570). Job XXXVIIL., 28, Sept. 

(571). Greek, as in column 916 of Tome LXXXIL., of Migne’s Patrologia 
Graeca: Οὗ τὴν φύσιν ἐκ τῆς φύσεως διηγούμενος, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ τῶν γενομένων EK TOV 
βουλήματος αὐτοῦ γένεσιν. Οὐδὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ πάντα δὲ βουλήματι αὐτοῦ 
γενόμενα ἑκᾶστον ὡς καὶ ἐγένετό ἐστιν. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ θεός" τὰ δὲ πρὸς ὁμοιότητα αὐτοῦ λόγῳ 
ὅμοια ἐσόμενα, τὰ δὲ καθ᾽ ἐκουσιασμὸν γενόμενα. Ta δὲ πάντα di αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ yevou- 
eva’ πάντα δὲ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 

The last part of this passage seems to be corrupt. The notes on it in Migne 
tell us that the last ἐστίν above is ‘‘ mot in the two Basel [manuscripts or edi- 
tions ?] nor in Nicephorus nor in Epiphanius Scholasticus; and that in Nicepho- 
rus the words τὰ δὲ---ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ γενόμενα are omitted; and that the first ra dé are in 
the Tripartite History, but that W. Lowth thinks they should be expunged; and 
that Stephanus had κατ᾽ οὐσιασμὸν, wrongly, the annotator in Migne thinks. I do 
not feel sure of that; for if an ov be supplied, and οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ, instead of 
οὐσιασμόν, the sense would be in accordance with the drift of Eusebius’ heretical 


368 Chapter VII. 


the grace given to thee by God, and be zealous to write [them] to my 
lord Alexander (572). For I have believed that if thou wouldst write to 
Him, thou couldst turn Him. Salute all whoare in the Lord’”’ (573). 


arguing. For then the reading might be; ‘‘ dut they are not made of Hs [that 
is the Father’s] swdstance.’? But as this part of the passage seems corrupt, and 
as it is uncertain as to what the exact reading is, I leave it. 

The drift of all the caviling of Eusebius of Nicomedia here is to show that 
the ἐκ ‘“‘out of’ does not mean ‘‘out of” in the following expressions of God 
the Word,” “172 come out of God,” ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον (John VIII., 42); and 
“7 come out of the Father,” ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός (John XVL., 28). Out of is 
the common and radical meaning of ἐκ, and the Oithodox insisted on it in those 
two unanswerable texts where Christ himself spea’xs; which, alas! are mistrans- 
lated in every English Version, Protestant as well as Latin, of which I know. If 
the Arians had translated those passages they could not have rendered them 
much more defectively, for the idea that God the Word has actually come out of 
His Father’s substance, and is hence of it is not in any of our English Versions. 
Eusebius of Nicomedia’s argument in effect is as follows: I do not deny that the 
general sense of ἐκ is ‘‘out of,” but I can show that in some exceptional cases it 
wan be rendered ‘‘of;’’ and so I would understand it in those texts to make them 
agree with my notion that the Son did not come ‘‘oué of”’ the Father at all, and 
hence is not really God, but is ‘‘of’’? Him in the sense of being created by Him, 
as men and dew drops are created by Him, and hence that He is a mere creature. 

So by proving that γεννάω, to bring forth, some times means fo make, to 
create, he would assert that it must be so understood where the Fafher says, He 
brought forth the Son, and so He would try to get rid of all proofs for the Divinity 
of the Son from the Words ‘“‘drought forth”’ in such a passage as Psalm CIX, 3, 
Septuagint, where the Father says of the Son, ‘‘ Out of my inwards 7 brought 
thee forth, before the morning star,” (ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά oe), 
that is before it was made as the Orthodox understood it; that is, he would, in 
such cases, take the exceptional instead of the general senses of those terms. 
But the Universal Apostolate to whom Christ promised the guiding of the Holy 
Ghost forever, under the influence of that blessed and infallible Spirit, decided 
that we must take those terms in their general sense in such passages, and believe 
that the Logos co-eternal and co-substantial with the Father was actually born 
out of Him ‘before all the worlds”’ as the Creed of the Second Ecumenical 
Council has it. For Christ commands us to hear the Church (Matt. XVIIL., 17), 
as well as to, ‘‘Zake * * * the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of 
God,” as a part of ‘“‘the whole armor of God”’ (Ephesians VI., 13, 17). And 
what God hath joined together let no man put asunder. But on the other hand 
let us not be deluded into taking any idolatrous utterance of part of the Church, 
as for instance that of Nicaea, A. D. 787, or that of Trent or any other mere part 
for the whole, for such utterances contradict the VI. Sole Ecumenical Synods. 

(572). Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria. ἃ 

(573). Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, Tome 82, col. 913; Theodoret’s Fcclest- 
astical History, Book I., Chapter V. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 809 


Theodoret, in Chapter VI. of Book I. of his Zecleszastical History, 
describes the first formal session of the Ecumenical Council in the 
Emperor Constantine’s palace; the address of Eustathius, Bishop of 
Antioch, to him; the Emperor’s reply, in which he urged the im- 
portance of following the inspired Scriptures which are so clear, and 
suggested to the Bishops, as a Son to Fathers, union in truth, the 
unanimity of the bulk of the Synod on the faith, and the resistance 
and heresy of the few Arians. On these last, he tells us that they 
suggested or dictated or recited what he terms ‘“‘Ax Lnstruction of 
Faith’? (πίστεως διδασχαλίαν), and besides gave it to the Council, which 
the Orthodox Bishops tore up, and then set forth the Nicene Creed 
instead. I quote this part: 


Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History, Book 7., Chapter VI.: 
‘“But some few, whom I have mentioned above (574), and in 


(574). ‘‘Adove,” towards the end of Chapter IV., Book I. of his Zcclestas- 
tical History, Theodoret mentions as Arian leaders, Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, 
Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregory of 
Berytus, and Aetius of Lydda. In the same chapte1 and in Chapter V. he men- 
tions another, that is Eusebius of Nicomedia. All those Arian Bishops therefore 
recited that /ustruction of Faith of which Theodoret speaks, and gave it to the 
Council. Was that the credal statement of which Eusebius of Caesarea speaks 
in his Epistle to his Parecians? 1 think not, for the reasons given above. 

Was it then the same as ‘‘¢he Epistle’ of Eusebius of Nicomedia of which 
Ambrose writes above, which he says was ‘‘vead in the Nicene Council,” and 
which led the Bishops of the Council to put the expression ‘‘of the same sub- 
stance’ (ὁμοούσιον) into the Nicene Creed? The last indeed is called by Ambrose 
‘‘an Epistle’? (epistola) ; whereas the writing of all the Arian Bishops is called 
by Theodoret “Ax Instruction of Faith” (πίστεως διδασκαλίαν), that is, “dn [n- 
structiou on Faith.’ ‘These two last may, however, have been the same, because 
Eusebius of Nicomedias’ Epistle was meant to be a statement on Faith against 
the Orthodox doé¢trine of the co-eternity and consubstantiality of God the Word 
with the Eather, as its whole tenor shows. Besides, towards its end, he exhorts 
his fellow-Arian, Paulinus of Tyre, to elaborate its heretical teachings and to 
write them to Alexander, the Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria. The Epistle, 
which was the offspring of the brain of the great Arian leader Eusebius of Nico- 
media, seems to have been generally accepted by his party, and as expressing 
their common sentiments may well have been the one recited by them and pre- 
sented to the Council. Besides they were both read and condemned in the same 
session of the Ecumenical Council. Yet if it was first ‘‘dzéfated”’ in the Council 
of Nicaea it may well have been different from Eusebius of Nicomedia’s Epistle. 

But we will speak of that Epistle of Eusebius of Nicomedia, further on. So 
we will speak further of the Profession of Faith of Eusebius of Caesarea. 


370 Chapter VII. 


addition to them, Menophantus of Ephesus, and Patrophilus of Scy- 
thopolis, and Theogonius, who was Bishop of Nicaea itself, and 
Narcissus of Neronias (Neronias is a city of the Second Cilicia, which 
they now call Irenopolis), and with them Theonas of Marmarica, and 
Secundus, the Bishop of Ptolemais, in Egypt (575), spoke against 
the apostolic doctrines by pleading the cause of Arius. And having 
also dictated (576) An Instruction on Faith (577), they besides gave 
it to the common body [of the Bishops of the Council], which they 
read, and at once all of them tore it up, and called it bastard and 
adulterated (578). Anda very great clamor having been raised against 
those [Arians], and all accusing them of betraying piety (579), they 
feared, and rose up out [of their seats], and then first renounced Arius, 
though Secundus and Theonas did not. And so that impious man 
(580) having been taken out of the way, all [the Bishops] in harmony 
recited (581) the Faith (582) which till now prevails in the Churches, 
and having confirmed it by their subscriptions, they dissolved the 
Council’’ (583). 


Theodoret, in the chapter next following the above, that is, in 
Chapter VII. of Book I. of his Acclestastical History, goes on to state 
that those Arians in thus subscribing to the Nicene Creed were in- 
sincere; and proceeds to prove it from the testimony of the great 
Eustathius, the Orthodox Bishop of Antioch, in one of his works, 
where he is explaining, in an Orthodox manner, the pet passage 
adduced so often by the Arians, the words in the Septuagint of 
Proverbs VIII., 22, ‘‘ Zhe Lord created me a beginning of his ways for 
his works.’’? Eustathius first describes the assembling of the Ecu- 


(575). Or, ‘‘of the Egyptians.” 

(576). Or, ‘‘suggested’’ or “recited,” ὑπαγορεύσαντες. 

(577). Greek, πίστεως διδασκαλίαν. 

(578). Greek, νόθον καὶ κίβδηλον. 

(579). Greek, τῆς εὐσεβείας; an expression often used among the ancient 
Christian Greeks for Orthodox Christianity. 

(580). Arius, the heresiarch. 

(581). Or, ‘dictated’? ὑπαγορεύσαντες, 

(582). Greek, πίστιν, Here we have an instance of the use of πίστις in the 
sense of Creed, in effect. 


(583). Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, Tome I.XXXII., column 920; Theodo- 
ret’s Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter VI. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 371 


menical Council in what was its first formal session, as his context 
shows, in which it set forth its glorious Creed. And then he comes 
to describe the writing or letter (τὸ γράμμα) of Eusebius. I quote this 
part because it is germane to our inquiry as to the identity of the 
‘« Ppistle’’ of Eusebius of Nicomedia, which Ambrose says was ‘‘ read 
in the Nicene Council,’ and the ‘‘ Justruction of’’ [that is, ‘‘oxz’’] 
‘« Faith,’? which Theodoret, as above, speaks of as diéfated or sug- 
gested or recited in the same session, and presented to the Hcumenical 
Council in the same session. Eustathius writes: 

‘‘But at soon as the manner of the faith was searched into, a 
plain proof, the writing of Eusebius’ blasphemy (τὸ γράμμα τῆς Εὐσεβίου 
βλασφημίας), was put forward. And when it was read before all, it at 
once caused tremulous misery in those who heard it, on accouut of its 
depravity, and it brought incurable shame to its writer (584). And 
then, inasmuch as the workshop of the partisans of Eusebius was 
clearly exposed, and the unlawful writing was torn up in the sight of 
all, some at once, and asa contrivance [of their own], brought for- 
ward the pretext of peace (585), and silenced all who were wont to 
speak those things which are best. And the Ariomaniacs, fearing 
lest perhaps they should be excommunicated (586) in so great a 
Council, at the same time leaping up renounce and anathematize 
the forbidden dogma [of Arius], and with their own hands subscribed 
the writing (τοῖς γράμμασιν), which had been agreed to by all (587). 
But by twisting about to the fullest extent possible, they kept pos- 
session of their sees (588), when they should have been made to pros- 


(584). Greek, τῷ γράψαντι. It is disputed whether that writer was Eusebius 
of Caesarea or Eusebius of Nicomedia. 

(585). The pretenders to peace were evidently Arians, or unwise compro- 
misers if Orthodox. 

(586). Or, “out and out ostracised,” that is, of course, by a formal excom- 
munication. The Greek word here is ἐξοστρακισθεῖεν. 

(587). Greek, συμφώνοις γράμμασιν ὑπογράψαντες aitoyepi. That means, of 
course, the Nicene Creed. 

(588). Greek, as in Migne’s text, τῶν προεδριῶν; but in his notes he gives τῶν 
προέδρων. See both in column 921, Tome LXXXIL, of Migne’s Fatrologia 
Graeca. With the former reading, the rendering would be what I have given 
above. That is the preferable reading, because it makes the best sense. 

With the reading τῶν προέδρων the meaning would be that the Arian leaders 
got hold of the Presidents of the Council, who were probably Hosius of Cordora, 
Alexander of Alexandria, and Eustathius of Antioch; and, we might suppose, 


372 Chapter VIT. 


induced them to spare them. But for that notion there is no sufficient proof; 


whereas there is for the notion that the Arian leaders turned about in every way 
to retain their Episcopates. 


As πρόεδρος means foresitter, and προεδρία means foreseat, and as the Bishop 
in his Cathedral sits before his people, the former Greek word was applied to him, 
and the second to his office. When Bishops gathered in a Council, the term πρόεδρος 
was applied to their preszdents as it is by Eusebius of Caesarea in Chapter XIII. 
of Book III. of his Life of Constantine, to the prelates who presided over it. 

Migne’s text reading, τῶν προεδριῶν, that is the foreseats, that is the Episco- 
fates, is by all means to be retained. That expression might seem to include, 

1. A reference to the fact that the the Episcopate (τὴν προεδρίαν) of the two 
greatest sees of the East at the time of the First Ecumenical Synod, Alexandria 
and Antioch, had fallen under Arian control before the death of Eustathius, 
which the article on him in Smith and Wace’s Diétionary of Christian Biog- 
raphy, puts about A. D. 337; Antioch by his own unjust deposition and his exile 
from it about A. D. 331, and Alexandria by the exile from it of St. Athanasius in 
336, and the intrusion of Arian influence and power in his place. The great 
sees of Nicomedia, the Emperor Constantine’s residence, and Ephesus, were in 
the hands of Arian prelates at the time of the Council of Nicaea, A. D. 325. By 
the death of the Orthodox Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople in A. D. 336, 
that great see actually became a subject for contention, between the Orthodox. 
the majority evidently, and their Arian opponents. and the intriguing Arian 
Eusebius of Nicomedia was transferred to it aboat (A. D. 338, Article ‘ Paulus 
(18)’’ in Smith and Waces Didtionary of Christian Biography). 

Later on the Emperor Constantius tried to force Arianism on the chief sees 


of the West, and to that end punished and banished Orthodox Bishops, but 
finally, after all his efforts, failed. 


In the last explanation I have taken προεδριῶν in the sense of Presidencies; or 
better Prelateships, and at first thought it referred to the chief sees. 

But, 2, since reading Valesius’ note on that place, in column 1533, Tome 
LXXXII. of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, and noticing in Sophosles’ Lesicon of 
Later and Byzantine Greek, that προεδρία, is equivalent to ἐπισκοπή, “ the episco- 
pal office or dignity,’ of which he gives instances there, as under πρόεδρος, he 
shows that it was used for ‘‘ Bzshop,’’ I prefer to translate the Greek here, τῶν δὲ 
προεδριῶν διὰ πλείστης bong περιδρομῆς κρατήσαντες etc., as follows: ‘And by 
twisting about to the greatest possible extent, and [so] holding fast to their epis- 
copates, when they ought to have been deposed, they,’”’ etce., as above. The fact 
is, the Arian leaders were, most of them, ready to do almost any thing to retain 
their own sees and the honors and power which went with them. Witness Euse- 
bius of Nicomedia’s cheatings, and those of Eusebius of Caesarea for instance, 
who signed insincerely and hypocritically the Nicene Creed, to avoid being de- 
posed and excommunicated, and then poisoned the minds of the Emperors of 
the East against it and against men who, like Eustathius of Antioch and Athan- 
asius of Alexandria, had been chief among its promoters and defenders. And 
“cheating” is one of the meanings given in Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon to περι- 


δρομή. ‘The article on Eusebius of Nicomedia in Smith and Wace’s Diétionary 
of Christian Biography refers to instances of his intriguing and unscrupulous 
spirit. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 373 


trate themselves (589), and [now] defend—sometimes secretly, some- 
times openly—the opinions which were [then] condemned by vote, 
and lay plots on different pretexts (590). And though they wish to 
firmly root their weedlike plantings [of heresy], they fear the judges 
[of it] and shun the inspectors [of it], and in that way they out and 
out war against the preachers of piety (591). But even so, we believe 
that godless (592) men have never as yet been able to prevail against 
the Divinity. For even though they may again acquire power, they 
shall again also be defeated, as the solemn-voiced prophet Isaiah 
writes.’? ‘Theodoret adds: ‘‘ Those things, therefore, says the great 
Eustathius’’ (593). 


(589). Greek, δέον αὐτοὺς [the Arian Bishops] ὑπόπτωσιν λαμβάνειν, literally, 
“when they should have gotten a prostration,” or ‘a fall,’ that is when they 
Should have been made to prostrate themselves to the Council for pardon, or when 
they should have been deposed. 

(590). This looks very much like a reference to the mean and disgraceful 
tricks and pretext on which the Arian leaders, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and 
Eusebius of Caesarea, and their partisans had got Eustathius out of the see of 
Antioch. Theodoret tells of it in Chapter XX., Book I. of his Ecclesiastical 
Fiistory. See also on it ‘‘Eustathius (3)? in Smith & Wace’s Diétionary of 
Christian Biography. 

(591). That is, of Orthodox Christianity; for no other than its professors 
can be called truly pious; because piety embraces two divisions ; 

1. Pious faith fulness in dedzeving all the teachings of God’s Word as author- 
itatively interpreted by the Universal Church, East and West, in the Six Orthodox 
Ecumenical Councils; and ° 

2. Holiness of life. No Arian could be pzows in the first sense, because he 
was impious in denying the Divinity of the Eternal Logos, and in degrading 
Him to the rank of creatures, and in favoring Creature-Service contrary to 
Christ’s own prohibition of that error in Matthew IV., το. 

(592). Greek, ἀθέους. The Arians were godless, that is without God as 
ἀθέους means, because they were without Christ our true God (John 1., 1, 14; 
John XX., 28; I. John V., 20); for they really rejected Him as true, that is as 
real and eternal God, and accepted Him only as a mere creature. For unless we 
receive a doctrine as Scripture reveals it we are impious, because we prefer our 
own wicked choice (aipecic), to the plain revealments of God as set forth in His 
Holy Word, and authoritatively expounded and settled by that Supreme Court 
of all Christendom which Christ has established and commanded us to hear, or 
be accounted ‘“‘as a heathen man and a publican’ (Matt. XVIIL., 17); that is a 
Council of his whole Church East and West; that is of that Universal Apostolate 
with which He has promised to be forever, and to whom He has promised the 
Spirit forever to guide them into all truth. 

(593). Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, Tome I,XXXII, column 921; Theod- 
oret’s Leclestastical History, Book I., Chapter VII. 


374 Chapter VII, 


Valesius, in his notes in columns 1532 and 1533, Tome LXXXIL., 
of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, infers from the above quoted language 
of Eustathius that ‘‘ the writing of Eusebius’ blasphemy’? (τὸ γράμμα 
τῆς Εὐσεβίου βλασφημίας) was that Creed of Eusebius of Caesarea of 
which he speaks in his Epistle to the people of his Pavoecia as form- 
ing the basis which, with additions, became the Nicene Creed. 


His arguments, in brief, are as follows: 


1. That Socrates, in Chapter XXIII. of Book I. of his Ecclesz- 
astical History, states that ‘‘ Austathius, the Bishop of Antioch, speaks 
disparagingly of Eusebius’’ of Caesarea as ‘‘falsifying the faith of 
Nicaea.’’ 

To this I reply that Socrates’ context there shows that the con- 
flict there referred to between Eustathius of Antioch and Eusebius of 
Caesarea was some time after the Council of Nicaea. It does not 
prove that the Creed of Eusebius of Caesarea and ‘‘ the writing of 
Eusebius blasphemy’? are the same; nor that it was not Eusebius of 
Nicomedia who was the author of said ‘‘ writing of Eusebius’ blas- 
phemy.”’ ‘Theodoret, who uses the latter expression in Chapter VII. 
of Book I. of his Ecclesiastical History, does not specify which Zusebius 
he means, nor do I know how we carn tell. 


2. That γράμμα may be used in the sense of Creed, 


That is true, for as it means, Méferally, ‘‘a writing”? of any kind, 
it may be applied to a /e/er, that is an efiséle, as it often is, and to a 
Creed; to a written statement, or, indeed, to a writing of any kind. 
But that has nothing to do with proving that “‘ the writing of Euse- 
bius’ blasphemy”? (τῦ γράμμα τῆς Εὐδεβίου βλασφημίας) was the Creed 
presented by Eusebius of Caesarea to the Synod. 


I have been inclined to think that Eusebius of Caesarea magni- 
fies his own importance and that of his formulary in his Letter to his 
Parecians , from 


1. The utter silence of Athanasius, Eustathius, and all other 
persons present at the Council of Nicaea, the Orthodox, and the 
Arians, as to the Creed of Eusebius of Caesarea, being the basis of 
the Nicene; and, 


2. From the dishonesty and deceptiveness apparent in Euse- 
bius of Caesarea’s Epistle to His Parecians, as for instance in his 
perverting the Anathema of the Council against those who say that 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 375 


the Son of God was not before He was born, so as to make it an Anath- 
ema not against the Arians, who made that anathematized assertion, 
but of His birth before all the worlds; for Eusebius makes that 
Anathema apply only against those who said that He was not before 
He was born of Mary, an idea which no Arian even was impious 
enough to assert; and, 


3. From the statement of Ambrose above, and from the silence 
of Athanasius in his /fiséle to the African Bishops, as to the Creed 
of Eusebius of Caesarea being ¢he basis of the Nicene, where there 
Was an opportunity for him to mention it. ; 


Indeed, from his /zstle to his Parecians, I do not feel sure that 
his Creed ever came formally before all the Bishops of the Council, 
though it did before some. 


It is true that Athanasius quotes Eusebius’ -fistle to the Caesa- 
veans, Which contains his assertion as to his Creed being the basis of 
the Nicene, but Athanasius uses language of it which seems to imply 
that Eusebius’ whole statement was warped, and one-sided. See 
Sections 2 and 3 of his Zfzstle in Defence of the Nicene Decisions, 
quoted above. 


If we take all the passages above quoted from Eustathius, and 
Ambrose, and Theodoret together, it seems that the Creed of Nicaea 
was drawn up by the Council directly after the rejection of the Credal 
statement of Eusebius of Nicomedia in an Epistle, probably in that 
to his fellow-Arian, Paulinus, of Tyre, or else one ‘‘dzétated’’ and 
made by them then. 


Whatever it was, according to Theodoret, Eusebius of Nicome- 
dia, and Eusebius of Caesarea, were among those who presented it te 
the Council, and saw them tear it up, and were, with the other Arians, 
compelled by the righteous indignation of the Synod to renounce 
Arius, and to sign the Orthodox Creed, though Eusebius of Caesarea, 
as Athanasius attests, refused to subscribe it till next day, but, as he 
writes, denzed it at first. 


In conclusion I would say as to the three documents mentioned, 
that is to say: 

(A). The Epistle of Eusebius of Nicomedia mentioned by Ambrose 
above: 


ee ἘΞ 


376 Chapter VII. 


(B). ‘ Zhe Writing of Eusebius’ blasphemy’? mentioned by The- 
odoret above ; 


And (C), the Faith presented by Eusebius of Caesarea, which 
he mentions in his /pzstle to his Parecians, 


It is not absolutely clear to my mind whether A and B are the 
same; or whether B and C are the same, and A different from both; 
but I think that Eusebius of Caesarea’s Confession is different from 
A and B; for A and B are described as blasphemous, which can not 
justly be asserted of the Confession of Eusebius of Caesarea, though 
it can justly be faulted as very defective because it lacks the test- 
terms of Nicene Orthodoxy, such as the expression ‘‘of the same 
substance,’’ etc., and for that reason, as he tells us in his Letter fo the 
Caesareans, the Bishops of the Council added those Orthodox ex- 
pressions which he there specifies. 


From the description given of A and B above, I infer that either 
they may be the same, or, more likely, that B is of the same general 
tenor as A, and was drawn up at the Council by the Arian Bishops 
much in its sense. Both were torn up. 


But we come, 


SECTION 8.--- 70 ask what facis have reached us as to who were most 
attive at Nicaea for the expression ‘‘O¥ THE SAME SUBSTANCE”? 
(ὁμοούσιον), and against Arian CREATURE-SERVICE. 


To this I reply that among them was certainly Hosius. For 
Athanasius, in Section XLII. of his Aistory of the Arians, after tell- 
ing of their persecution of Liberius, Bishop of Rome, and of his fall, 
comes to speak of their machinations against Hosius. For he writes 
there as follows: 

‘The impious men, though they had done such and so great 
things, considered that they had done nothing so long as the great 
Hosius had not been put to the proof by their wickedness. For they 
looked to stretch out their own madness even against so very old a 
man; and they were not shamed by the fact that he is a Father of the 
Bishops; nor did they respect the fact that he had been a Confessor 
[of the Faith in times of persecution], nor did they regard the time of 
his Episcopate, that he had been sixty years and more in it; but they 
counted all those facts as nothing, and looked out for their heresy 
alone. For they are really men who fear not God nor regard man: 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 377 


(594). Going, therefore, to Constantius (595), they again made use 
of such expressions as here follow: 


“We have done all things, and have exiled the Bishop of the 
Romans, and, moreover, we exiled as many Bishops as possible before 
we did him, and we have filled every place with fear; but so many of 
thy deeds amount to nothing for us (596), and nothing at all zs well 
finished for us so long as Hosius ts let alone. For so long as that man 
zs tn his own See, all [other Orthodox Bishops] ave zz their Churches 
also. 476 ts enough to persuade all by reason and faith against us. 
And that man 15. A LEADER IN SYNODS; and writing is heard every 
where. AND THAT MAN SET FORTH THE FAITH IN NICAEA, and 
every where proclaimed that the Arians are heretics. If, therefore, he 
remains, the exiling of the others was (597) superfluous , for our heresy 
is being taken out of the way. Begin, therefore, to persecute him also, 
and spare [him] not, even though he ἐς very old, for our heresy knows 
not to honor even the white hair of old men’’ (598). 


(594). Luke XVIILI., 2 

(595). The Arian Emperor, 

(596). , ‘but thy so great deeds amount to nothing for us.” 
(597.) Or, nS become (γέγονεν) superfluous.” 


(598). St. Athanasius’ /77story of the Arians, Chapter XLII. (page 212 of 
Bright’s edition of S¢. Athanasius’ Historical Writing's): 

Οὗτος καὶ συνόδων καθηγεῖται, καὶ γράφων ἀκούεται πανταχοῦ" οὗτος καὶ τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ 
πίστιν ἐξέθετο, καὶ τοὸς ᾿Αρειανοὺς ἐκήρυξεν αἱρετικοὺς εἷναι πανταχοῦ. 

Compare Socrates, Book III., Chapter VII. 

Rev. E. 5. Ffoulkes in his article in Smith and Cheetham’s D7étionary of 
Christian Antiquities, on Nicaea, A. D. 325, argues with much force against the 
notion that Hosius was a legate of Rome. He puts his pre-eminence on the 
ground of his great age and his favor with the Emperor. His remarks are found 
on page 1390, right hand column, and after in Volume II. of Smith and Cheet- 
ham’s work. But he has not adduced any proof for his supposition that Eusta- 
thius did not address the Emperor Constantine on behalf of the First Ecumenicak 
Council at the commencement of its first formal session; nor for his notion that 
Eustathius’ address to Constantine is spurious. He gives no proof either for his; 
mere unsupported supposition that Hosius was the one who then addressed the 
Emperor. I prefer the opposite view on all these points; on the first two because 
there is proof positive for the view that Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, made 
that address, and that it is genuine; and on the third, that is on the assertion 
that Hosius made it, because it contradicts Theodoret’s written statement above 
that it was Eustathius who made it, and because there is nothing but mere un- 
supported supposition that Hosius performed that function, ὃ 


“378 Chapter VII. 


Hosius was, I think, one of the Presidents to whom Eusebius of 
Caesarea tells usin Chapter XIII. of Book III. of his Lzfe of Con- 
stantine (599) that Emperor left the business of the First Ecumenical 
‘Council after he had made an opening speech to them. And because 
of his age, character as a Confessor, and of his intimate relations 
with that Emperor, he was a leader in other Councils also. 


And, what is very pertinent to our topic, Athanasius here repre- 
sents the Arians as saying of Hosius, 


«« That man set forth the Faith in Nicaea.”’ 


‘‘ By that expression they would naturally mean not those parts 
of the Nicene Creed which are the same as parts of Eusebius of Cae- 
sarea’s Profession of Faith, (for they did not object to them); but 
those parts of the Nicene Creed which teach the co-eternity and con- 
substantiality of the Logos with the Father. Hosius, as one of the 
leaders of the Council, had doubtless especially fayored them and 
moved the Emperor Constantine to favor them. And those facts the 
Arians would not forget, but voice their anger in the words above ; 
“That man set forth the Faith in Nicaea:’’ that is, they mean, the 
Nicene Creed. 

But Hosius, according to Chapter VII., Book III. of Socrates’ 
Ecclesiastical History, had an earlier connection with the words which 
-are used in the test-terms of the Nicene Creed, I mean especially the 
words οὐσία, substance, and ὑπόστασις, subsistence. Socrates who was, 
as that chapter shows, an Origenist, and who has been thought to be 
a Novatian also, did not like those words and gives a warped account 
of the discussion on them in the Council held afterwards at Alexan- 
dria in Egypt under St. Athanasius in A. D. 362, where they came 
up for discussion, and at which was present a noted Latin confessor 

.of the Faith, Eusebius, Bishop of Vercelli in Italy. Socrates states 
of that Alexandrian Council of A. D. 362, as follows: 

‘‘And those who were present in the Council in Alexandria did 
not permit that matter to pass without examination; I mean the 
‘question concerning ‘‘swbstance’’ (οὐσίας) and “‘ subsistence’? (ὑποσ- 
τάσεως). For Hosius, the Bishop of Cordova, in Spain, whom we 
have mentioned before, when he was sent forth by the Emperor Con- 
stantine to squelch the trouble which had then been made by Arius, 


(599). See above, page 262, where I have quoted the Greek. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed: 379 


in his eagerness to cast out the dogma of Sabellius the Libyan, raised 
the question in regard to sudbstance and subsistence (περὶ οὐσίας χαὶ 
ὑποστάσεως); which itself became the basis of another idle word con- 
troversy. But then the Council at Nicaea, which was held after 
that, did not deem it worth while even to mention (600) that ques- 
tion. But forasmuch as after those things certain persons wished 
to trifle concerning that matter, therefore they pronounced as follows 
in that Synod’’ [at Alexandria, in A. D. 362] ‘‘concerning both 
“ substance’ and ‘ subsistence’ [οὐσίας te xat ὑποστάσεως]. 


Then Socrates gives his own Origenistic account, which differs 
from Sozomen’s as below, and from what Peltier, as below, has 
adduced from ancient authors; for he (Socrates) represents the Council 
as inclined to disfavor those terms. Whereas we know that both of 
them are found in the Nicene Creed, οὐσία twice, ὑπόστασις once, besides 
ὁμοούσιον Which is compounded of the root of οὐσία, substance, and 60s, 
the same. 


The fact is, the only question mooted in that local Council as to 
those terms seems to have been as to the propriety of using the ex- 
pression Zhree Hypostases τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις; and it was ended by all 
agreeing that those words may be used in the sense of Zhree Persons. 
The term ὑπόστασις means originally what stands under any thing, and 
finally, as Liddell and Scott in their Greek-English Lexicon, show, it 
came to mean ‘‘ 7he real nature of a thing, as underlying and sup- 
porting its outward form and properties,’ and so=odsta, [Latin] sad- 
stantia.’’ It came to mean subsistencies also, that is exzstencies, and in 
that sense could be used of the Persons of the Trinity, for each Person 
exists separately as a Person, but unitedly all Three are but one 
eternal God, and as such have but onze existence. 


Hence one set of the Orthodox using ὑπόστασις in the sense of 
subsistence, that is exzstence, could say, ‘‘ There are Three E-xistences’’ 
(τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις); but they would add, they have but ‘‘one substance’? 
(μίαν οὐσίαν). 

Whereas another set of the Orthodox, who used the word ὑπόστασις 
in the sense of substance would not say, ‘‘ There are Three Hypostases’’ 
(τρεῖς ὑποστάσες), because that affirmation would mean, to them, 7/7¢e 


(600). Or, ‘did not deem it worth while to discuss.’ Greek, οὐδὲ λόγου 
ἠξίωσεν, 


380 Chapter VII. 


substances, and would seem to savor of Arianism, for Arius and his 
partisans, in their letter to Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, had used 
that very expression, ‘‘ Zhere are Three Hypostasies’’ (ὥστε τρεῖς εἰσι 
brootdosts—see page 186 above), which the context there shows they 
took in the sense of Zhree Substances, and of unlike substances at that. 
But, as has been said, all the Orthodox, who used the expression 
«« There are Three Hypostases’’ (τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις), explained that they 
meant what one sense of the term ὑποστάσεις admits, Three Existences 
in the sense of Three Separate Persons of but one substance; and so 


the expression was received and has been since used among all the 
Orthodox. 


Sozomen, in Chapter XII., Book V., of his Zcclestastical History, 
refers to that Council of Alexandria in A. D. 362, and its discussion 
of those Greek words. And Migne’s Peltier’s Diétionnatre des Con- 
ciles under ‘‘ Alexandrie (Concile d’) [ an 362,” gives an account of 
the controversy on those two terms. ‘The cause of it was that, as 
has just been stated, some of the Orthodox used the expression, 
‘‘ There ave Three Hypostases’’ (τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις), in the sense of bezngs, 
that is Persons. Whereas others used ὑπόστασις in the sense of szd- 
stance, and so asserted but one ὑπόστασις, that is but ove substance in 
the Trinity, and were scandalized at the assertion of their brethren 
that there are ¢iree. Finally peace was made when those who used 
the latter expression explained, as has just been said, that they used 
it in the sense of Persons only. ‘That discussion, however, was about 
thirty-seven years after the Council of Nicaea, and really had special 
reference to the term ὑπόστασις only or mainly. 


Philostorgius the Arian is more definite, for, according to Pho- 
tius’ summary of him. he writes, in Chapters VII. and VIII., Book 
I., of his Acclestastical History, as follows: 

‘‘ Philostorgius says that before the Synod at Nicaea, Alexander, 
the Bishop of Alexandria, arrived at Nicomedia, and, having fallen 
in with Hosius of Cordova, and the Bishops, who were with him, he 
prepared them to confess by Synodical votes that the Son is of the 
same substance as the Father, and to publicly ex-communicate Arius.” 

Chapter VIII. ‘‘Not long after that, the Synod of Nicaea as- 
sembled,’’ etc., (601). 


(601). Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, Tome LXV., column 464; Philostorgius’ 
Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter VII., Ὅτι καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνόδου, 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 381 


The way then of the matter seems to have been something as 
follows: The expression ‘‘of the same substance’’ as St. Athanasius 
shows (602), and as Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Epistle to his Flock 
adniits (603), had been used by the ancients. It seems with the ex- 
pressions ‘‘sabstance’’ (οὐσία), and ‘‘ subsistence’? (ὑπόστασις) to have 
been used in the discussions at Alexandria at the rise of the Arian 
Controversy; and when Hosius was sent thither by the Emperor Con- 
stantine to quiet the dispute, that prelate would naturally become 
well acquainted with the use of those words there, if he did not know 
before. And Socrates, as above quoted, tells us that he raised a 
question as to two of them. And this might be, for Arius and his 
fellow-heretics in their letter to Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, had 
asserted Three unlike Swzdsistenctes (ὑποστάσεις). See it on pages 186, 
187, above. Among the dlasphemies of Arius, on page 203 above, is 
found a denial of the truth that the Son is of the same substance as 
the Father; and on the same page he denies that his Trinity is of ove 
substance. So among the Blasphemies of Arius reported by St. Athan- 
asius, on page 208 above, is a denial of the Son’s consubstantiality 
with the Father. 


So Arius in his letter to Euseb:us of Nicomedia, necessarially by 
implication denies the consubstantiality of the Son when he makes 
him a creature and made out, not of God, but of things not existing. 
See above 179, 180 and 181. 


All these fa¢ts and the statements of St. Alexander, Bishop of 
Alexandria, and of St. Athanasius, show that some time before 
Nicaea the terms sdstance (οὐσίαν), subsistence (ὑπόστασις), and of the 
same substance (ὁμοούσιον), were on the lips of men on both sides of 
the controversy; with this difference, however, that when the Arians 
asserted, as for instance in their Epistle to Alexander of Alexandria, 
on page 186 above, that Zhere are Three Substances (ὑποστάσεις), they 


οὗτος τὸν ᾿Αλεξανδρείας φησὶν ᾿Αλέξανδρον καταλαβόντα τὴν Νικομήδειαν, καὶ Ὁσίῳ τε TO 
Κουδρούβης ἐντυχόντα καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ ἐπισκόποις, συνοδικαῖς ψήφοις ἀνομολογῆσαι παρασ- 
κευάσαι ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν Ὑἱὸν καὶ τὸν "Αρείον ἀποκηρύξασϑαι. [The spelling for 
Cordova in Philostorgius as above is wrong.—Chrystal. ] 
Chapter VIII., Mer’ οὐ πολὺν δὲ χρόνον καὶ τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ συστῆναι σύνοδον, ete. 
(602). See pages 32 and 43 of the Oxford translation of St. Athauasius? 
Treatises Against Arianism. 


(603). Id., page 64, where Eusebius of Caesarea speaks. 


382 Chapter VII. 


meant Three unlike subsistances, that is Three unlike substances, whereas 
the Orthodox held that they are of the same substance (ὁμοούσιον). In 
other words the Orthodox were disposed to use the terms ‘‘ swbstance’’ 
(οὐσία) ‘‘ subsistence’? (ὑπόστασις), and ‘‘ of the same substance,’’ to ex- 
press their doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the 
Father; whereas for that very reason the Arians rejected that Orthodox 
sense of them. 


Hosius would easily learn these facts at Alexandria, and would 
naturally take the Orthodox side for the use of those terms. On his 
failure to convince the Arians he returns to Nicomedia, the Emperor 
Constantine’s residence, and advises him to assemble an Ecumenical 
Council. The Emperor does so. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, 
on his way to it halts for a time at Nicomedia, and confers with 
Hosius, his friend and the bosom friend of the Emperor Constantine, 
as to what should be done to resist the heresy that the Logos is a 
creature and its consequent heresy that He zs to be worshipped as a 
creature, which was a plain return to the pagan error of creature-ser- 
vice. ‘The result of the conference was that they determined to adopt 
as the watchword of Orthodoxy that the Logos is of the same substance 
as the father, which cuts up both those Arian heresies by the roots. 
So we find that when the Council opens the Bishops wish to add that 
expression to Eusebius of Caesarea’s Profession of Faith, and refuse 
to adopt it without that addition, as Eusebius testifies in his Epzs¢le 
to the Caesareans. ‘The Orthodox Bishops act as though they came 
to that session thoroughly prepared to demand the adoption of that 
expression into the formula of the Council, and that every Bishop 
should subscribe it. Hosius had evidently done away with the evil 
influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia over the Emperor, at least for the 
time being, and Constantine seconds the efforts and decision of the 
Bishops of the Council; and the Creed of Nicaea is drawn up and 
the expression; 

1. “Of the same substance as the Father”? (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Mazp:); and 


2. “‘ Out of the substance of the Father’? (ἐχ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός), are 
put into it; and, in the Anathema, the Universal Church anathema- 
tizes those who say that the Son of God is out of another subsistence or 
substance than the Father, ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἤ οὐσίας). Hosius, by 
his influence over Constantine whom he may have won to favor the 
faith during his residence in Spain, by his high position in the Council 
of Nicaea as a Confessor, and as a close friend of Constantine whose 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 989. 


language, as a Latin, he as a Bishop of a Spanish diocese, well knew, 
as he knew Greek also, and for whom he could therefore be an inter- 
preter to and from the Greek-speaking prelates who formed the great 
majority of the Council; Hosius, in all these ways could well have it 
said of him by the Arians, 


“ That man set forth the Faith in Nicaea’’ (604). 


(604). The learned French Latin, Tillemont, has some good remarks on 
Hosius in his Memotres pour Serviral Histoire Ecclesiastique des Six Pre- 
miers Siecles, Tome VII. (Paris, A. D. 1706), page 300 and after. On page 311, 
he thinks that the view that at Nicaea he was a legate of Pope Saint Sylvester 
is not well authorized. 

Ffoulkes, in his article on ‘‘ Vicaea,’’ pages 1390, 1391, Volume II., of Smith 
and Cheetham’s Diétionary of Christian Antiquities, brings some important 
facts to explain Hosius’ prominence at Nicaea and against the notion that he was 
alegate of Rome. He holds that ‘‘¢he order in which Bishops should sit at 
General Councils”? was ‘‘as yet undetermined by rule,” and so that “he who 
was the most ancient would be placed first,”’ and he cites Eusebius and others in 
proof; and hence argues that on that ground his pre-eminence in the Council is 
to be accounted for. Another reason for it, he holds, was the fact that he had 
been a Confessor in the time of Maximian. 

Ffoulkes adds that, ‘‘There is proof from Eusebius of Hosius having acted 
for Constantine several times before (Εἰ. H. X. 6; Vit. C. 11., 63; Comp. Soc. L., 
7), but no contemporary proof whatever of his having ever acted for Pope Syl- 
Western maga 

“‘Up tothe last quarter of the 5th century—notwithstanding all that had been 
written on the Council by St. Athanasius, and other fathers, by the one Latin 
and three Greek ecclesiastical historians who followed Eusebius, all also that 
had been cited from it by the Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and other places— 
not a word had been said, or a hint dropped, of Hosius having represented any- 
body there but himself. In A. Ὁ. 476, or thereabouts, the statement that Pope Syl- 
vester was represented there by him, as well as by his own true [two?] presbyters, 
was adventured on by Gelasius of Cyzicus, a writer of the poorest credit, who 
makes Constantinople the seat of empire when the Council met, and Rufinus, 
the historian, one of those present; and to this statement Bishop Hefele gravely 
calls upon us to assent still (Zz¢vod., pp. 36-41 and 46).” 

From the way in which Eusebius speaks of Hosius and of the legates of 
Rome, in Chapter VII., Book III. of his Life of Constantine, I infer that Hosius 
was not a legate of Rome. I quote his words; after mentioning the nations of 
Asia and of Africa, who were represented by Bishops, he comes to specify those 
people of Europe who had Bishops present, and writes: 

‘And Thracians, and Macedonians, and Achaeans, and Epirotes met [with 
the rest] and those who dwelt still farther away than they, and of the Spaniards 
themselves the very celebrated one was co-sitting along with the many; and 
though the prelate of the imperial city was absent by reason of old age, never- 


384. Chapter VI. 


-- 


I do not here make much of the testimony of the inaccurate 
Gelasius of Cyzicus. Yet it is noteworthy that even he makes for 
the view that the great Hosius led the way towards the adoption by 
the Council of the expression ‘‘ of the same substance.” 


For in his Ads of the Nicene Council, Book II., Chapter XVI., 
he reports the Bishops at Nicaea as answering by the mouth of Hosius, 
Bishop of Cordova, a philosopher who took the side of Arius, and the 
noticeable thing is that Hosius is represented as setting forth the 
do@trine of the Consubstantiality in his response. He speaks of the 
Son as ὁμοούσιος τῷ Πατρί, that is as ‘‘of the same substance with the 
Father,’ and in the same reply he addresses his opponent thus: ‘‘ One 
must understand, therefore, O Philosopher, that the Father and the Son 
as to the substance of their Divinity are one, as also the same Son in 
the Gospels cries: “7 and the Father are one; to whom he said, ‘Let us 
make man in our image, after our likeness.’’”’? Afterwards it seemed 
good to the assembled Fathers to insert the dodtrine of the Consub- 
stantiality into their Definition or Symbol. See Gelasius of Cyzicus’ 
Aéts of the Nicene Council, Book II., Chapter XXIV. It is after the 
answers of Hosius and others on different points that the philospher 


theless presbyters of his were present and filled his place,”’ (αὐτῶν τε Σπάνων ὁ 
πάνυ βοώμενος εἰς ἣν τοῖς πολλοῖς ἅμα συνεδρεύων' τῆς δέ γε βασιλευούσης πόλεως ὁ μὲν 
προεστὼς ὑστέρει διὰ γῆρας, πρεσβύτερος δὲ αὐτοῦ παρόντες τὴν αὐτοῦ τάξιν ἐπλήρουν. 1 
quote the Greek from column 1061, Tome XX., of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca). 
Here the way in which Hosius is mentioned and presbyters of Rome, seems to 
imply that Hosius did not represent Rome but Spain, and that the only repre- 
sentatives of ‘the prelate of the imperial city,’’ Rome, were those spoken of as 
“« presbyters of his.”” 

A note here in column 1061, Tome XX., of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, on 
the words “‘the prelate of the imperial city,’’ tells us that Gelasius of Cyzicus 
believed that they meant the Bishop of Constantinople, and that Nicetas, in his 
Treasure-House of thé Orthodox Faith, Book V., Chapter VI., followed him ; 
and Nicetas adds that Metrophanes was Bishop of Constantinople at that time ; 
and that Epiphanius Scholasticus, in Book II. of his 7ripartite History, says the 
same. But the annotator, in Migne, well remarks; 

“But that explanation can not be endured. For Constantinople had not yet 
been dedicated, nor had it been decorated with the title ‘dmperial city’ when 
the Council congregated in the city of Nicaea. And so those words of Eusebius 
must necessarily be understood of the Bishop of the city of Rome; which Sozo- 
men confirms in Book I., Chapter XVI., where the name of Julius has wrongly 
crept into the text for Sylvester; and Theodoret confirms it in Book I., Chapter 
ἌΤΣ 


Nicaca, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 385 


here mentioned declares his belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, and 
after that again that the Council by a Synodical Act puts forth the 
doctrine ‘‘of the same substance.’’ See Gelasius of Cyzicus’ Ad?s of 
the Nicene Council, Book II., Chapters XXII., XXIII and XXIV. 
But scholars do not give much credit to such things in Gelasius as rely 
on ais authority alone. And so I therefore dismiss his witness with the 
remark that the proof above given for the belief that Hosius was very 
active for the adoption at Nicaea of the expression ‘‘of the same sub- 
stance’’ is ample without Gelasius, and that that fact was so well 
known. even in Gelasius’ day that he voices it in the above tale, 
whether it be fiction or truth, or both mingled together. 


Before closing on Hosius, I would add that the Christ-hating 
pagan historian Zosimus, in his Szx Books of New History, written in 
the fifth century, likes to have his fling at prominent Christians; and 
among other things tells a yarn about Constantine, the Emperor, 
having been troubled about his having put to death his son Crispus 
for illicit intercourse with his stepmother, Fausta, and of his putting 
her to death afterwards, because his own mother, Helena, who, I 
should add, was a Christian, was grieved at her grandson’s death. 
According to the Historic Commentary of Reitemeier on that matter, 
Zosimus has blundered as to times and events, (Reitemeieri Commen- 
tarius Historicus, pages 354, 355, of the edition of Zosimus, Bonnae, 
£837.) 

But anent Hosius, it may be well to notice what Zosimus says of 
an Egyptian, who had been supposed, by some, to be Hosius. Zosi- 
mus writes, in his Book II., Chapter X XIX., that while Constantine 
was troubled for his execution of his son and wife, 


‘‘A certain Egyptian having come out of Spain into Rome, and 
having become well acquainted with the women in the palace, and 
having met with Constantine, out and out affirmed that the doctrine 
of the Christians can expiate every sin, and has this promise, namely 
that if the impious share it they at once become free from every sin: 
and Constantine having most readily received that doctrine, and hav- 
ing renounced his hereditary [pagan] opinions, and having become a 
sharer of those which the Egyptian communicated to him, he made a 
beginning of ‘his new regard for Christianity by holding the 
[pagan] diviners art in suspicion’ (Bekker’s Zosimus, page 95). 


386 Chapter V11, 


Reitemeier as above, and Sozomen in his Acclestastical History, 
Book I., Chapter III., and Evagrius in his /eclestastical History, Book. 
III., Chapters XL. and XLI., as well as Gibbon, have censured the 
unfairness and mistaken assertions of Zosimus. 


Reitemeier, as above, refers to the fact that years before Constan- 
tine had seen the vision in the sky which converted him, and that 
the heathen Zosimus takes no notice of his strong regard for Chris- 
tianity till he began to enact laws against divination and openly to 
deride paganism and to think of founding another Rome in the East, 
as he tells us he did after the Egyptian came to Rome. Zosimus’ 
story would imply that Constantine then first opposed paganism, and 
so became hated by the Roman Senate and people. So wesee, Zosimus 
blunders in not knowing that Constantine was a pronounced favorer 
of Christianity long years before the execution of Crispus and Fausta. 


Yet may there not be some’ truth in his lies? May not the 
Egyptian who came from Spain, by whose influence he frowned pub- 
licly on pagan soothsayers, and openly derided pagan rites, be Hosius 
of Cordova, and may he not have seen the Emperor’s Christian 
mother in the palace, and so been introduced to her son and moved 
him to good? I think so. He may have been an Egyptian by birth 
or descent, who early went to Spain and became one in heart and 
tongue with the Latin-speaking Christians of that land. 


Zosimus evidently blunders as to what was said to Constantine 
by the ‘‘ Egyptian from Spain’’ of whom he writes; for the Chris- 
tians of the fourth century, like their predecessors, held that baptism 
is ‘‘for the remission of sins’’ (Acts II., 38, and XXII., 16); and 
their Bishops were willing to die for that tenet as a part of the faith, 
but not for the heretical notion that to believe in the Christian reli- 
gion without being baptized can save a man. And as Constantine 
was not baptized till just before his death in A. D. 337 (605), we may 
be sure that if the ‘‘ Egyptian from Spain’’ was Hosius, he would 
not have deceived Constantine by telling him that he was a Christian 
without baptism. But one who did not know the facts as to Con- 
stantine’s baptism would naturally get the idea from Zosimus’ words 


(605). Eusebius of Caesarea, in Chapters LXI., LXII., LXIII. and LXIV., 
of Book IV., of his Life of Constantine shows that he was first made acatechumen 
in his last sickness at Helenopolis, and that after that he received baptism at 
Nicomedia and died there. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 387 


that he was baptized into the Christian Church before he left Rome 
to found a new capital on the Bosphorus. Indeed, that may have 
been Zosimus’ idea. But on that matter, as on others, where Chris- 
tianity is concerned, he knew so little of facts, and was so full of bitter 
pagan prejudice that he constantly went astray (606). Constantine 
had openly favored the Church as early as A. D. 311 and 312, where 
we find his name in edi¢ts which tolerate them, and blunt the teeth 
of persecution. We find the Donatists appealing to him to decide 
between them and the Catholics, and in response, in A. D. 314, he 
gathers Bishops of his jurisdiction at Arles in Gaul, where Spain was 
represented. For it was then in Constantine’s jurisdiction, And it 
is certainly a possible thing that, when in that land, he visited Cor- 
dova, which was then one of its most important cities, and with his 
sympathies for Christianity, became well acquainted with its zealous 
and able Bishop, Hosius, so that he probably knew him years before 
the time when he visited Rome, and is spoken of by Zosimus, I think, 
as the ‘‘ Ae yptian from Spain’ who visited the women in the palace 
at Rome (607, 608). Why may he not have met Helena, the Em- 


(606). Professor Milligan has a good article on ‘‘Zostmus” in the last 
volume of Smith and Wace’s Diftionary of Christian Biography. 


(607). See page 638, Vol. I., of Smith and Wace’s Diitionary of Christion 
Biography for the dates of those events. 


(608). Argles, in his article on Helena, page 882, Volume II., of Smith and 
Wace’s Dittionary of Christion Biography, expresses the view that Helena be- 
came a Christion through her son Constantine. But, 

1. That inference is opposed to the common view of the ancients: 

2. The passage to which Argles refers as proof for that statement that Con- 
stantine converted her to the Christian Faith (Chapter XLVII., Book III., of 
Eusebius’ Life of Constantine), does not say that, but only that he rendered her 
a more devout worshipper of God. She was, I think, a Christian before, but 
became a more devout Christian by his influence. I give a literal translation of 
the passage below. In the chapters before, Eusebius has just spoken of her 
munificence in building churches, etc., which probably, an they required large 
means, she had not sufficient money to do, and hence .rew from her imperial 
son, and then he mentions her death as follows: 

“ΤῊ 6 mother of the Emperor was therefore perfected, having become worthy 
of unforgetable remembrance, both on account of her dear to God a¢ts and of 
the eminent and admirable son who was born of her; who deserves to be blessed 
in addition to all his other good traits for his dutifulness towards his mother: for 
he made her so God-fearing when she was not before, that it seemed that she had 
been instructed by the common Saviour from the first.” The Greek, as in 


388 Chapter VII. 


peror’s mother, then, and before in Spain, when he was ruler there? 
The precise and definite details on these matters indeed are not well 
known, but the facts, which we do know, look that way. 


And of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, the Synodal Kpistle 
states that 


‘« He was both a master and a sharer in the things which have been 
done.’’ 


And the same is true of that distinguished prelate of Antioch of 
whom Christian antiquity speaks as ‘‘the great Eustathius’’ (609), 
whose zeal for the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and 
against the Arian creature-service is clear from his address to the 
Emperor Constantine at the very beginning of the first formal session 
of the Council (610). Facundus, Bishop of Ermiana or Hermiana, in 
the province of Byzacena in Africa in the sixth century, in his Defence 
of the Three Chapters, which is addressed to the Emperor Justinian, 
Book VIII., Chapter IV., speaks of him as ‘‘ the blessed Eustachtus”’ 
[an error for ‘‘ Hustathius’’| ‘Bishop of the city of Antioch, who was 
for the right faith in the Nicene Council’ (611). 

- And, in the same work, Book XI., Chapter I., Facundus terms 
im. 

‘* The blessed Eustachius’’ [that is, Zustathius] ‘‘ Bishop of Antioch 

who was first in the Nicene Council’’ (612). 


Column 1108, of Tome XX., of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, of part of the above 
is as follows: ὃν πρὸς τοῖς ἅπασι, καὶ τῆς εἰς THY γειναμένην ὁσίας μακαρίζειν ἄξιον, οὕτω 
μὲν αὐτὴν θεοσεβῇ καταστήσαντα, οὐκ οὖσαν πρότερον, ὡς αὐτῷ [but the common reading 
is not αὐτῷ but αὐτὸ, a note in Migne here tells us, and I prefer it] δοκεῖν ἐκ πρώτης 
τῷ κοινῷ Σωτῆρι μεμαθητεῦσθαι. ᾿ 

(609). ‘Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter VI. See the 
quotation on page 273 above from it. 

(610.) See it translated on pages 276, 277 above. 

(611). Facundi episc. Hermianensis Pro Defensione Trium Capitul, lib. 
VIII., cap. IV. (col. 719, Tome LXVIIL., of Migne’s Patrologia Latina); et dies 
nos deficiet percurrentes beatum Eustachium Antiochiae civitatis episcopum, qui 
fuit pro recta fide in Nicaeno‘Concilio, etc. 

(612). Facundus, Id., lib. XI., cap. 1. (column 795, Tome LXVIL, of 
Migne’s Patrologia Latina); Nam beatus Eustachius Antiochenus episcopus, qui 
primus in Nicaeno concilio fuit, sexto adversus Arianos libro, de eo quod ait Do- 
minus; Nemo scit diem illum (Matt. XXIV., 36); Dicamus, inquit, etc. A note 
in the same column of Migne tells us that ““Zustachium,”’ in this note, should be 
“Fustathium.”’ 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 389 


I am aware that the honor of speaking for the First Ecumenical 

‘Council to the Emperor Constantine has been ascribed by a few, be- 

ginning with Theodore of Mopsuestia, to Alexander Bishop.of Alex- 
andria. Let us see how that matter stands: 


Nicetas Choniata, of the thirteenth century, was Bishop of Mar- 
onea, and afterwards became Bishop of Thessalonica. He has left 
us a work entitled ‘‘ Zhesaurus’’ [or ‘‘ Treasury’? ] ‘‘ of the Orthodox 
Faith.’ Book V., Chapter VII., of it refers to the First Ecumenical 
Council; and states that ‘‘EKusebius [of Caesarea] in the Third Book 
of his Life of Constantine, testifies that he himself first spoke in the 
Synod.’’ This isan error. Sozomen in the following century, as 
shown above, makes that assertion. Eusebius of Caesarea does not 
specify the name of the first speaker. Next Nicetas refers to Theo- 
doret’s statement, quoted above, that the Bishop who replied to the 
opening address of the Emperor Constantine was Eustathius, Bishop 
of Antioch. “Then he adds: 


‘But as Theodore of Mopsuestia writes, that honor’’ [of speaking 
first in that Council] ‘‘has been ascribed to Alexander the Pontiff of 
Alexandria besides, on the ground that he was the leader and cause of 
the assembling of the Synod. He adds that that prelate narrated in 
the session of the Council all things in order as they had occurred, 
and that after many speeches besides had been delivered on this side 
and on that, the Bishops came to an agreement among themselves, 
and pronounced the Son to be ὁμοούσιον to the Father, that is of ex- 
actly the same substance with Him (613).”’ 


I judge from the above that there is noclear proof that Theodore 
of Mopsuestia had any documentary evidence for the idea that Alexan- 
der, Bishop of Alexandria, was the prelate who replied to the Emperor; 
but that he inferred that he was from the fact that he was the first in 
rank of all the Bishops present, and that Eusebius of Caesarea in 
Chapter XI., of Book III., of his Zzfe of Constantine, without specify- 
ing his name, states that it was ‘‘the Bishop who occupied the chief 


(613). Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, Tome CXXXIX., col. 1367; Nicaetae 
Choniatae, 7hesauri Orthodoxae Fidei, lib. V., cap. VII. The original Greek is 
not there given, but only the Latin translation. I have Englished the latter. It 
is as follows: Ut antem Theodorus Mopsuestiaeus scribit, Alexandro Alexandrini 
Pontifici id honoris ultro delatum est, quippe qui Synodi cogendae dux et auctor 
exstitisset. Hunec in Synodi consessu omnia ut se habebant ordine narrasse 
subjicit. 


390 Chapter ΚΠ. 


place in the right division of the assembly,’’ as Bagster’s translation | 
has it. But such an inference does not amount to much against, 


1. The plain statement of Theodoret that it was Kustathius of 
Antioch; and, 


2. The fact that we have still preserved to us Eustathius’ Oration 
on that occasion. 


These three great prelates stand chief in the Council as the lead- 
ing formulators of the deathless Creed of Nicaea, the wording of 
which we must believe was made with the Christ-promised assistance 
of the Holy Ghost, who is to be with the sound Universal Apostolate 
forever to guide them into all truth. 


But time would fail to tell the merits of the rest of the 318 
Orthodox Bishops who were champions for Christ’s Divinity, and 
against Arian Creature-Worship; and to record the shame of such of 
them as, like Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea, op- 
posed. I must leave that to the historian and the biographer. The 
fame of some of them lives in letters of living light; others, it may be 
equally meritorious and equally active for the truth of God against 
hydra-headed Arianism, had their modest worth enshrined in the 
hearts which they fitted by their sound and holy teachings for heaven; 
and there those whose merits are detailed by biographers and by his- 
torians, and those whose are not, abide with those whom under God 
they saved, with Christ in endless joy and triumph; for he never fails 
to remember the merits of his servants, who have manfully contended 
for his faith and died in it at the last; for he giveth liberally and 
upbraideth not. But if any among them did not continue steadfast to 
the end, and lost his crown in the fiery Arian persecutions which 
afterwards arose, for him must we grieve; and take heed lest we also fall. 


As nearly all the Apostolic sees mentioned in the New Testament 
were represented by sound Bishops (Rome by presbyters), in the 
First Ecumenical Council, we may be sure that the sense of the Scrip- 
tures which had been transmitted and preached in their Churches from 
the beginning on the vital theme of Christ’s Divinity was enshrined 
by them in its blessed and glorious Creed, and that every thing in 
that Symbol is an embodiment of Scriptural faith held to from the 
first; so that that noble Document is indeed Afostolic in the highest 
and fullest sense. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 391 


We come, now, 


9. Zo mention the most notable terms which are found in THE CREED 
OF THE First ECUMENICAL CoUNCIL, but are not in the PRO- 
FESSION OF Farru presented by Eusebius of Caesarea; and to 
note the reason for them. 


Eusebius, in his letter to his people, speaking of the eight articles 
(614) which compose that part of the Nicene Creed before the anath- 
ematism, dwells only on the following expressions as liable to question: 


1. ““ΟΥΈ ΟΕ the substance of the Father,’’ ἐχ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς. 
2. ‘‘Of the same substance as the Father,’’ ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ ; and 


3. ‘‘ Born, not made,’ Τεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα. 


He does not openly reject the terms, but inquires regarding them, 
how they were meant. Indeed, he confesses in this very document, 


1. Lu regard to the truth of the term ὁμοούσιον, that ‘‘on examina- 
tion there are grounds for saying, that the Son zs of one substance with the 
Father’”’ (615); and 


2. In regard to the authority for its use: ‘‘We were aware that even 
among the ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops and Writers 
have used the terms ‘Of the same substance,’ in their theological teaching 
concerning the Father and Son”’ (616). 


And 3, he admitted the expression ‘‘zo¢ made,’’ though whether he 
held to the full Orthodox sense, either of that expression or of the 
terms expressing Consubstantiality, has been justly doubted (617). 
He professes, however, in this Epistle, to have received them and the 
Anathema. 


(614). That is the three great themes of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost, which logically make three great articles; though for the sake of conve- 
nient comparison with the Western Creed called the Apostles’, we divide the 
second article, that is that on the Son into six, and so we make eight; counting 
that on the Father Article 1, that on the Son Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7; and that 
on the Holy Ghost Article 8. 


(615). Oxford translation of St. ATHANASIUS’ Treatises Against Arianism, 
page 63. 
(616). Id., page 64. 


(617). See id., notes on pp. 62 and 63. 


392 Chapter VII, 


These three expressions in the eight articles—that is the articles 
before the Anathema (618) seemed to the mind of Eusebius the more 
notable and distin¢tive of the additions to his own formula. 


As to the Anathematism, he remarks on the expressions: 
1. ** Out of nothing’ (619). 
2. ‘‘ Once He was not’’ (620). 


3. ‘Before He was born, He was not’? (221). 


All these expressions of the Nicaean Anathema coincide in con- 
demning the heresy that the Son is not eternal. 


All the six expressions above noted, as well as the doétrine which 
they contain are lacking in the paper of Eusebius. 
The first two of the six guard the do¢trine of the Consubstan- 
tiality. 

The third forbids any man to deem the Son a creature, as does 
the fourth also. 

The last two make Him eternal, and therefore co-eternal with the 
Father. 

None of those terms came from Eusebius of Caesarea, for as an 
Arian he was naturally opposed to them, and never in his heart really 
received them. 


Athanasius, in his Apzstle to the African Bishops, and in sections 
1g and 20 of his /pzstle in Defence of the Nicene Decisions, shows how 
difficult it was for the Orthodox to frame sound test-expressions 
which the Arians could not explain away. For instance, in section 
19 of his Epistle tn Defence of the Nicene Decisions, he shows that the 
Orthodox said that the Son had come out of God, ἐχ τοῦ Θεοῦ which is 


(618). Perhaps it would be better to say the three great articles before the 
Anathema, that is: 

1. The article on the Father; 

2. The article on the Son; and 

3. The article on the Holy Ghost; though, in writing on the so-called Apos- 
tles’ Creed, men, in the Middle Ages, often divided the articles on the Trinity 
in it into eight—perhaps originally from their belief in the legend that each of 
the Apostles made one article of the present twelve of that Creed. 

(619). Greek, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, 

(620). Greek, ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν. 


(621). Greek, πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: . lis Creed. ΒΒ Ὁ] 


in accordance with Christ's own statement in John VIII., 42, but the 
Arians explained it to mean owt of God in the sense of ‘‘of God,” that 
is in the same sense as men are of God, that is that He did not come 
out of His Substance, but was a mere creature from outside of Him. 
Then the Fathers, to make their meaning clearer and the sense 
stronger, set forth the expression ‘‘ out of the substance of the Father” 
(622), and put it into the Creed. And with the same intent they put 
forth their affirmations of Orthodoxy in the three expressions above, 
in the part of the Creed before the Anathema, and their negations of 
all the Arian assertions that Christ is a creature, and of their creature- 
worship which is based on them, in the Anathema, in the three clauses: 
there forbidden. 


Eusebius mentions only three additional clauses of the part of 
the Nicene Creed before its Anathema. In fact there are eleven. Let 
us exaiine. 


On pages 68-73, above, are found the parts of ¢he Nicene Creed 
before its Anathema, and side by side with them the parts of Eusebius 
of Caesarea’s Profession of Faith which treat on the same articles, that 
is those on the Trinity. On comparing them we see that in 


Article 2, the order of the clauses which contain the same word- 
ing is different; for instance, in Eusebius’ Profession ‘‘God out of God”? 
precedes, ‘‘ Born out of the Father,” whereas the reverse is the case in 
the LVicene Creed. 


Besides, the Vicene Creed has the following words, which are not 
in Eusebius’ Profession: 

(A). ‘‘.Sen,’’ before ‘‘of God.” 

(B). ‘‘ That ἐς out of the substance of the Father.” 

(C). ‘‘ Very God out of very God.” 

(Ὁ). ‘‘ Born, not made.” 

(E). ‘‘ Of the same substance as the Father,;’’ and 

(F). ‘‘ Both those in the heaven and those on the earth,’ 


In Article 3, the Vzcenxe has 
(G). ‘‘ For us men and,’’ and 
(H). ‘Came down and,’ and 


we OOM 


(622). Greek, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ ἸΤατρός, 


394 Chapter VII. 


(I). ‘‘The words ‘‘and put on a man,’’ which are not in Euse- 
bius’ Profession. 


In Article 6, the Vcene has 


(J). ‘‘Lnto the heavens,’’ which are not in Eusebius’ Profession. 

In Article 7, The Vicene has 

(K). The present ‘‘cometh.’? whereas Eusebius’ Profession has 
the future tense. 

We come now, 


SECTION 10. Zo mention the chief things in Eusebius of Caesarea s 
PROFESSION OF FaitH, which are not tn the Nicene Creed, and 
to ask why they were omitted by the Fathers of the Council. 

‘The following are the omissions: 


(A). The first six lines of Eusebius’ Profession, on pages 59 and 
60 of the Oxford translation of St. Athanasius’ 7vreatises Against 
Arianism, and part of line 16, and the whole of the end of it, com- 
prising the rest of line 16 and all of lines 17 to 29, inclusive. That 
leaves but ten lines of the 29 to be considered, that is lines 7-16. In 
those ten there are the following omissions: 

(B). The term ‘‘ Word’’ (Λόγον) is omitted in line 9, in the ex- 
pression ‘‘ Zhe Word of God;’’ and the Nicene Creed has instead, 
“ The Son of God.’’ ‘The order of the Greek words differs; the Pro- 
fession of Eusebius having, τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον; the Nicene Creed hav- 
ing, τὸν Υἱὸν tod Θεοῦ. 

(C). ‘‘ Life out of Life’’ is omitted in line τὸ. 

(Ὁ). ‘‘ First Brought Forth of every creature,’’ as Eusebius of 
‘Caesarea, with his Arian feelings, intended it to be understood, is 
omitted in line 11. 

(FE). ‘‘’The words, ‘‘ Before all the worlds born out of the Father,’’ 
in lines 11 and 12, are omitted. Hahn punctuates as I give this 
clause. Newman punctuates so as to make, ‘‘ Before all the worlds,’’ 
a clause which may be taken with the clause just preceding, in which 
case this place would read, ‘‘ First Brought Forth of every creature, 
before all the worlds.”’ 

(F). ‘And lived among men’’ is omitted in line 13. 


The clause, 


(6). ‘‘And went up TO THE FATHER,”’ in line 14, is in the Nicene 
Creed, ‘‘ And went up INTO THE HEAVENS.”’ 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 395 

ον το tL ebisie tek Gee Baal te ee SN ee Ξ ΞΞ- 
(H). ‘‘Again’’ is omitted in line 15. ‘‘ la Glory” given in 
Newman’s translation, on page 60 of his St. Athanasius’ 77veatzses 
Against Arianism is not in Hahn’s Bibliothek der Symbole, page 186. 


(1). In line 16, the word ‘‘ ove’? is omitted before ‘““Floly Ghost.”’ 
Now as to why these omissions and changes were made. 
We can only surmise the reasons. 


The reason for omitting the beginning and the end, comprising 
all mentioned under ‘‘ A’’ above, may well have been their personal 
character, and the fact that the person there professing his faith was 
an Arian. ‘The language as referring, to some extent, to Caesarea, 
and as depicting the experience and belief of an Arian leader was not 
fit for a Universal Creed. 

I know of no sufficient reason for the change mentioned in ‘‘B.’’ 


T’he clause mentioned under ‘‘C’’ is not specially needed to de- 
fend the Divinity of the Son after the strong clauses for that tenet 
found in that place in the Nicene Creed. 

Asto ‘‘D,’’ the words ‘‘ First Brought Forth of every creature”? 
were used by Eusebius in the Arian sense to which he held, and 
probably to teach Arianism; and the Council justly refused to em- 
body them in the Creed in that sense. 


Eusebius of Caesarea, like the rest of the Arians, would go so 
far as to teach that the Word was created before all the worlds, and 
may have intended to have that place read as has been said, τ 792 
Brought Forth of every creature before all the worlds,” though it is not 
absolutely certain, for he would take the words following ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς 
γεγεννημένον in the sense of “‘ created by the Father,’’ which, though 


forced and unnatural, was what the Arians meant by that Greek 
expression. 


These remarks cover D and E. 


As to “Ἐς the words, ‘‘ And lived among men’? are not 50 per- 
tinent as others in the Nicene Creed to prove the Divinity of Christ. 

As to ‘‘G,”’ the reason for preferring ‘‘ zto the heavens’? to the 
expression ‘‘/o the Father’’ is not clear to me; nor is the omission of 
‘“‘qgain”’ in ‘‘H,’’ except that it is not necessary to teach the resur- 
rection, for ‘‘ vose up’’ teaches that doctrine without it. 


Nor do I know why in “‘I,’’ ‘‘ove’’ should be omitted before 
** Holy Ghost.’’ 


396 Chapter VII. 


a - 


Some of these variations look very much as though the Bishops, 
in drawing up the Creed of Nicaea, took but little notice of Eusebius’ 
Profession. 

From the foregoing data I do not feel sure that Eusebius of Cae- 
sarea’s Formula, was taken as the basis of the Nicene Creed, though 
certain parts of it are so much like the Nicene Creed that they may 
have influenced its wording. 


SECTION 11. Who wrote THE SyMBOL of the 318 of Nicaea ? 


Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, says 
that 


“ The blessed Hermogenes * * * wrote the great and irrefra- 
gible Creed in the Great Synod’ (623). ‘‘ The Great Synod’? here 
meant is Nicaea, that being a common title of it among the ancients. 
‘“‘ The Great and irrefragable Creed’’ is its Symbol. 

Hermogenes was Basil the Great’s predecessor in the Archiepis- 
copal See of Caesarea. 


In another passage our Basil refers to Hermogenes’ connection 
with the Symbol of the 318. For he mentions: 
“* Hermogenes, who was diametrically hostile to the evil belief of 


Arius, as the very Creed pronounced by that man at the beginning at 
Nicaea shows’? (624). 


(623). Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, edit. Gaume, 
Paris, 1839, Tom. III., page 249, says that Hermogenes wrote the Nicene Creed, 
that is, not the Constantinopolitan, but that of the 318. Thus writing to In- 
nocent, a Bishop (Epist. 81), who had asked St. Basil, of Caesarea to succeed him 
in his See at his (Innocent’s) death, St. Basil declines, but recommends an ap- 
proved presbyter instead, in these words. “Iva οὖν μὴ εἰσέλϑω εἰς κρίσιν μετὰ σοῦ, 
ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον κοινωνόν σε εὕρω τῆς ἀπολογίας μου, τῆς ἐπὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, περιβλεψάμενος ἐν 
τῷ συνεδρίῳ τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου τοῦ κατὰ τὴν πόλιν, ἐξελεξάμην τὸ τιμιώτατον σκεῦος τὸν 


ἐκγονὸν τοῦ μακαρίου ‘Epuoyévovc, τῦυ τὴν μεγάλην καὶ ἄῤῥηκτον Πίστιν γράψαντος ἐν τ΄ 
μεγάλῃ συνόδῳ. 


I translate, 

“‘In order, therefore, that I may not enter into judgment with thee, but 
may rather find thee a sharer in my defence before Christ, I have looked about 
in the co-session of the presbytery in the city, and have chosen out the most 
precious vessel, the descendant of the blessed Hermogenes, who wrote the great 
and irrefragable Faith in the Great Council.” 

_ The allusion here, according to Gaume’s Judex under WVicaea, is to the 
Nicene Faith. That is clear. 

(624). The following refers to Hermogenes, Bishop of Caesarea, in Cappa- 

docia. It is in Gaume’s edition of Basil, Paris, 1839, Tome III., page 552. Sts 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: 225 Creed. 397 


But Leontius was bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia at that time. 
Hermogenes did not succeed him until some time after. He was in 
sub-episcopal orders at that time. 


Hermogenes then wrote the Creed of the 318 at Nicaea, but 
whether that means that he wrote the first copy of it at the sugges- 
tion of his own Bishop, and the other Orthodox prelates, or whether 
it means only that he wrote a copy of that original, I know not. In 
Section 3 of St. Athanasius’ Letter in Defence of the Nicene Definition, 
γράψαι with the dative may, be used possibly.in the sense of sadscribe, 
though I do not find that meaning given for γράφω in the Sixth Edition 
of Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon, nor in that of Sophocles, 
which makes against that sense. But we have the accusative here, 
so that subscribe may not be so fit a renderiug here, nor perhaps per- 
missible. If it were, we might understand merely that Hermogenes 
subscribed to the Nicene Creed. 


Basil, speaking of the changeling, Eustathius, Bishop of Sebaste, and others, 
states that Eustathius was an Arian, but professed Orthodoxy when he came to 
Hermogenes, of Caesarea. Basil writes of Eustathius and his companions, 
“They were following Arius from the beginning; they changed when they 
were with Hermogenes, who was diametrically hostile to the evil belief of Arius, 
as the very Creed pronounced by that man at the beginning at Nicaea shows. 
After Hermogenes fell asleep, they [Eustathius and his friends] changed again 
and went over to Eusebius, a man who was the head of the Arian ring,”’ etc. 
Then Basil goes on to describe their changes further. The article of Venables, 
on Lustathius of Sebaste, in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biogra- 
phy, gives a sorry account of that changeling’s variations. Basil the Great, as 
above, begins his account of Eustathius and his friends as follows: 
“‘Hermogenes was Basil the Great’s predecessor in the Archiepiscopal See.”’ 
᾿Αρείῳ κατηκολούθουν τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς" μετέϑεντο πρὸς ‘Epuoyévyy, τὸν κατὰ διάμετρον εχθ- 
ρὸν ὄντα τῆς ’Apeiov κακοδοξίας, ὡς δηλοῖ αὐτὴ ἡ πίστις ἡ κατὰ Νίκαιαν παρ᾽ ἐκείνου τοῦ 
ἀνδρὸς ἐκφωνηϑεῖσα ἐξ ἀρχῆς. ᾿Ἑκοιμήθη "Ἑρμογένης, καὶ πάλιν μετέστησαν πρὸς Εὐσέβιον, 
ἀνδρα κορυφαῖον τοῦ κατὰ “Apetov κύκλου, ὡς οἱ πειραϑέντες φασίν, 
Le Quien gives the order of succession in the Archiepiscopate of Caesarea, 
in Cappadocia, about this time, thus: 
VY. Leontius. 
VI. Eulalius. 
VII. Hermogenes. 
VIII. Dianoeus. 
IX. Eusebius. 
X. Basil the Great. ‘See his Oriens Christianus, Tome I., pp. 370-373. 
Caesarea of Cappadocia is marked as in the patriarchate of ἜΣΕΙ τὴν But 
the patriarchal power of Constantinople did not exist over Cappadocia at the 


398 Chapter VIL. 


Basil elsewhere calls him ‘‘ Zhe most blessed Bishop Hermogenes 
of Caesarea,’’ and in the context shows that Hermogenes was a main- 
tainer of that Nicene faith or Creed which he had written, so that 
when the Arian changeling, Eustathius of Sebasteia, went to him, 
‘‘he judged him for his unbelief,’ and it was not till Eustathius 
‘‘gave’’ Hermogenes ‘‘a confession of sound faith’’ that he gave him 
ordination (625). And during Hermogenes’ life time Eustathius 
seems to have held to the faith, but fell away after his death (626). 


I would add that the See of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, was, prob- 
ably, founded by an Apostle, and was adorned by two great Bishops, 
St. Firmilian, and St. Basil the Great, the latter one of the greatest 
doctors of the Eastern Church. Firmilian was one of the most emi- 
nent prelates of the third century, and was on the side of Cyprian of 


date of Nicaea, nor by Canvoz in the days of Hermogenes or Basil the Great Of 
Hermogenes, the successor of Eulalius, Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, Tome I., 
p- 371, thus writes: ‘‘Eulalium excepit Hermogenes, quem Basilius epistola 70 
beatissimum Caesareae episcopum vocat, τῷ μακαριωτάτω ἐπισκόπῷ ‘Eppoyéver Kaica- 
ρείας. Hune epistola rursum 84 hostem e diametro exstitisse ait perversae 
sententiae Arii, τὸν κατὰ διάμετρον ἐχθρὸν τῆς ’Apeiov κακοδοξίας, 

Huic Eustathius 1116 Sebastenus, de quo mox dicebam, cum suis, Nicaenae 
fidei professionem primum obtulit, statim vero ab ejusdem Hermogenis obitu 
Eusebio se Constantinopolitano, olim Nicomediensi dedidit. Ad Dominum 
igitur Hermogenes migravit ante annum 341 quo Eusebius ille Arianorum prin- 
ceps interiit: imo certe ante hunc annum 341 quo Hermogenis successor 
Dianoeus Antiocheno Eusebiana factione celebri Concilio interfuit, Athanasium 
proscripsit et Gregorium Cappadocem Alexandrinae ecclesiae episcopum cum 
Eusebianis designavit: 

Gelasius, of Cyzicus, represents, in his second book, Leontius, of Caesarea, 
passim, as taking part in the Council of Nicaea, The name of Leontius is among 
the subscriptions to the Synod of Nicaea. 


(625). Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, (same edit. 
of Gaume, t. iii., p. 588, Zpzst. 263). The following is the whole passage on the 
same page in Gaume, Tome III.: "στε τοίνυν εἷς τῶν πολλὴν ἡμῖν κατασκευαζόντων 
λύπην, Ἑὐστάϑιος ὁ ἐκ τῆς Σεβαστείας τῆς κατὰ τὴν μικρὰν ᾿Αρμενίαν" ὃς πάλαι μαϑητευϑεὶς 
τῴ Αρείῳ, καὶ ὅτε ἤκμαζεν ἐπὶ τῆς ᾿Αλεξανδρείας, τὰς ποναρὰς κατὰ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς συντιθεὶς 
βλασφημίας, ἀκολουϑῶν ἐκείνῳ, καὶ τοῖς γνησιωτάτοις αὐτοῦ τῶν μαϑητῶν ἐναριθμοῦμενος ἐπειδὴ 
ἐπανῆλϑεν εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ, τῷ μακαριωτάτῳ ἐπισκόπω “Ἑρμογένει τῷ Καισαρείας, κρίνουτε 
αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῇ κακοδοξίᾳ, ὁμολογίαν ἔδωκε πίστεως ὑγιοῦς. Kai οὕτω τὴν χειροτονίαν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ 
δεκάμενος͵ [ δεξάμενος} kK. τ. A. 

(626). See the facts and references noted in Venable’s article, ‘ Husta- 
thius of Sebaste,’’ right hand column, page 384 of Volume II. of Smith and 
Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: 2,5 Creed. 399 


Carthage, in the latter’s dispute with Rome as to the validity of he- 
retical baptism. He deemed it invalid. It is claimed that its first. 
Bishop was St. Primianus, better known by the name of Longinus, 
the soldier who pierced the Saviour’s side with a spear. 


Le Quien, in his Orvzens Christianus, Tome I., pages 353-355, 
gives his opinion as follows: (I translate his Latin), 


‘‘And so, inasmuch as Caesarea was a very large and a very 
rich city, there was, therefore, in it, from the first, a very numerous 
Church, which was founded by Peter the first of the Apostles. Indeed, 
we are allowed to gather that fact from his First Epistle; for he ad- 
dressed it to the elect sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, 
Cappadocia, etc. For surely Jerome and others, as well as the Acts 
of St. Basil, Bishop of Amasea in Pontus, which John Bolland has 
published under the twenty-sixth day of April, [all] testify that all 
those regions, as far as to the Black Sea, were traversed by him 
[Peter] to propagate the Gospel in them. In those Acts [just men- 
tioned] it is also asserted that Peter set out from Antioch and preached 
Christ at Amasea, and there appointed Nicetius Bishop; and then, 
with his brother Andrew, he labored for some time at Sinope in 
Helenopontus. But it is not at all likely that in his preaching in 
those regions of Pontus he failed to do so in the central provinces [of 
it], and especially in the city of Caesarea. And certainly he was 
wont to teach Christ’s Faith at that time to the Jews especially, who 
were scattered here and there in those parts, but he did not at all 
pass by the Gentiles, to whom all the Apostles were sent as well. 
Wherefore, I do not doubt that the first Bishop of Caesarea was ap- 
pointed by him, whom we will show in its own place hereafter, to 
have been the very centurion of that cohort which led the Lord to 
his suffering, and fastened him to the cross. 


‘“‘However, John Chrysostom, in his Homzly XX. on the Epistle to 
the Romans, asserts that Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, had his 
own parts also in the Pontic regions, as he had in converting those of 
Asia to the Faith. Aye, Theodoret, who habitually quotes him 
[Chrysostom], says, on the same Epistle: 


‘““*And he [Paul] filled with the doctrine [of Christianity], both the 
Eastern and the Pontic parts, and in addition to them the parts of Asia 
and Thrace.’ So far as pertains to the city of Caesarea, Luke, the 


400 Chapter VII, 


Evangelist, is a reliable witness to prove that he [Paul] left Ephesus 
and went to it, where there was then a flourishing Christian Church. 
for he sent out from Ephesus and went down to Caesarea, and went up 
and saluted the Church, and went down to Antioch. 


‘Moreover, Basil the Great, who was himself the Archbishop of 
Caesarea, in his 291st Epistle, which is addressed "20 the Bishops of 
the Pontic Diocese,’ called them to a Council in his city to celebrate 
the anniversary day of Saints Eupsychius, Damas and other martyrs; 
and said that they were summoned by his Church through his own 
voice, because they were its proper ornament and honor, ‘ Zhe 
Church reminds you, tts own ornament, and invites you by our voice.’ 
That language is surely a sufficient proof that the churches of Pontus 
were dependent on Caesarea as their first see and their head.’’ 


The Caesarea, in the quotation from Acts XVIII., 22, above, is 
‘generally thought to mean not Caesarea in Cappadocia, but Caesarea 
in Palestine. But, however that may be, as it seems certain that 
Caesarea in Cappadocia was founded by an Apostle, either Peter or 
Paul, probably by Peter; if Hermogenes, who wrote the Nicene 
Creed, quoted any part of its local creed in it we may well deem its 
dotrine to have come down from the Apostles there, as it certainly 
has elsewhere. 


. But, 


SECTION 12. We come to show the Scripturainess of the Creed of Nicaea. 


All the sense of it, and nearly every word of it is taken from 
Holy Scripture; so that it is entirely Scriptnral; and so differs very 
much from many later Professions, Confessions, and heretical Creeds. 
And it is passing strange that the heretics who are so zealous for their 
errors which are neither in the sezse nor the words of Scripture do not 
see that. They are constantly faulting the two Ecumenical Creeds 
or unscripturalness when they will not take the pains to examine 
how Scriptural they are, nor how Anti-Scriptural their own erring 
assertions are. In another volume on Nicaea we show how thor- 
oughly the words and the sense of the Nicene Creed agree with those 
.of God’s Word, from which the Father’s of the Council took them. 
‘There is no room in this volume. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 401 


SECTION 13. On the inconsistent and hypocritical course of the Arian 
party in signing and afterwards rejecting those terms of the Nicene 
Creed which teach the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father: 
and in pleading that they rejected them because they are not in 
Scripture, while they used terms which are not in Scripture to 


express their heresy. ᾿ 


On this matter I have spoken above in note 521, on page 345, 
on the blasphemous Epistle of Eusebius of Nicomedia. Asking my 
kindly reader to turn to that first, I will add what here follows: 


Though Eusebius of Caesarea had assented with his lips to the 
test terms of the Nicene Creed with the design of explaining them 
away at the first favorable opportunity, as he did in his Leffler fo his 
Jock, and though, for a season, some other Arians admitted them in 
words and explained away their sense, St. Athanasius shows that 
other Arians afterwards grew weary of such hypocrisy, and on the 
insincere plea that they are not in Scripture, wholly rejected them. 
In reply to these last he shows how they differed from the course of 
Eusebius of Caesarea, on that matter, while at the same time they 
professed to respect him; and how, moreover, they used expressions 
not in Scripture to set forth their heresies, and that, therefore, their 
plea for Scripture terms was inconsistent, and a mere excuse to avoid 
confessing the truth. For Athanasius, in Section 37 Of his work oz 
the Council of Ariminum and on that of Seleucia, witnesses that some 
of the Arians had “ accepted, many times, the term ‘substance’ as 
good, especially on the ground of the letter of Eusebius ’’ of Caesarea, 
to his flock, though afterwards the Arians blamed ‘those before 
themselves for using such terms,’’ on the ground that they are not in 
Scripture, whereas, as Athanasius shows just before that, those later 
Arians were constantly using expressions on Christ which are not in 
Scripture, and so they used terms not in Holy Writ on the Father, 
and on the Trinity. For instance, they said of the Father that He is 
‘““ungenerated ’’ which, though true, is not in Scripture. ‘They said 
that the Logos is not of the Father’s “" swdstance”’ (οὐσίας), which is 
neither true, nor in Scripture. They said “there are three subsistences 
(τρεῖς εἰσιν ὑποστάσεις), which expression is not in Scripture, nor is 
their sense of it there, that is that, ‘‘ There ave 7) hree unlike sub- 
stances.’’ Nor are any of the Arian expressions, which are con- 


402 Chapter VII, 


demned in the Anathema at the end of the Nicene Creed, in Scripture 
either in words or in sense. I mean the expressions, 


1. ‘* There was once when the Son of God was not,’ 

2. ‘‘ He was not before He was born,’ 

3. ‘He was made out of non-existing things’’ [that is out of 
nothing]; 

4. ‘‘ He ts of another subsistence or substance’? [than the Father]; 


GS. dese creatures. 
6. ‘‘ He ts mutable; 
4. ‘* He ts alterable.”’ 


The fact is that the appeal for the use of Scripture terms alone, 
in the mouths of the Arians, was the veriest inconsistency, as it 
always is in the mouths of all other Anti-Trinitarian heretics now, 
for they constantly use terms not in Scripture to state their heresies 
and their differences from the Orthodox; and the very necessities of 
their heretical position compel them sotodo. This is true of all 
heretics, both of those who worship creatures and idolatrize by in- 
voking the Virgin Mary, Saints, and angels, or who bow to or kiss 
images, painted or graven, or relics, or worship the Eucharist before 
its consecration or after its consecration; and of those who, on the 
other hand, infidelize by denying the Trinity, the Divinity of the 
Logos, the doétrine of the Atonement by Christ’s saving blood, the 
doctrine of one baptism for the remission of sins, the due authority 
of the One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church, and of its Christ- 
commissioned ministry, and of everlasting punishment, and other 
Scripture truths. 


Therefore, St. Athanasius ably retorts upon them their use of 
non-Scriptural, aye Anti-Scriptural terms to set forth their heresies, 
and then adds of the Arian leaders, Acacius and others, as follows: 


“And when Acacius and Eudoxius and Patrophilus say such 
things [that is pretend to use scripture terms alone], why are they not 
worthy of all condemnation? For, whereas, they themselves use in 
their writings terms not in Scripture, and have often admitted as good 
the expression ‘of the substance’ (τῆς οὐσίας), and [that] especially 
because of the Epistle of Eusebius, they now fault those before them- 
selves for using such expressions. And, moreover, while they them- 
selves have said that ‘‘ Zhe Son ἐς God out of God (Θεόν 2x Θεοῦ) and 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: 765 Creed. 403 


‘Living Word,’ and ‘unvarying Image of the substance (τῆς οὐσίας) of 
the Father; they now fault those who said at Nicaea [the Son has 
come], 


“““ Out of the substance’ (x τῆς οὐσίας) [of the Father]; 


“And, ‘fe who was brought forth ἐς of the same substance (ὁμοούσιον) 
as He who brought Him forth.’ But what wonder is it if they fight 
against those before themselves, and against their own Fathers, when 
they themselves oppose each other and conflict with each other’s ex- 
pressions ?’’ The Greek is on pages 287, 288 of Bright’s St. Athan- 
asius’ 7istorical Writings. 

No consistent Arian could sign the Nicene Creed as Eusebius of 
Caesarea had done; and he did so only to save his position and honors. 


Yet there were Semi-Arians, who, as Athanasius shows in Sec- 
tion 41, of his work on the Council of Ariminum in Italy and that of 
Seleucia in Isauria, objected to the expression ‘‘ of the same substance,” 
but nevertheless held to the doétrine embodied in it. Athanasius 
mentions Basil of Ancyra as one of that kind. See there on page 138 
of the Oxford translation. 


tO 
REM 


404 Chapter VIL, 


ΝΟΣ": 


ΠΗ eT RS TCU MENT ΘΑ ΘΟ ΝΟΥ 


Its GENUINE REMAINS. 
CHAPTER VIII. 
ITS CANONS. 


Only four of the Six Ecumenical Councils have made any Can- 
ons. ‘They are: 


I. NicAkA, A. D. 325, which made 20 Canons. 
II. I. CoNSTANTINOPLE, A. D. 381, which made 7 Canons. 
III. Eruesus, A. Ὁ. 431, which made 8 Canons; and 
IV. CHALcEDON, A. D. 451, which made 30 Canons. 


Neither the Fifth Ecumenical Council nor the Sixth made any 
Canons. 


The Canons of the first four Ecumenical Synods are vastly im- 
portant, for they contain precious and necessary Doctrine and Rite; 
and nearly all of Ecumenical Discipline is enshrined in them. That 
Discipline guards and enforces the saving Doctrines of the whole 
Church, and without it, they can not be maintained as they should 
be; nor can there be any settled and sure Ecumenical law and order. 
If the Ecumenical Canons are trampled under foot, more or less an- 
archy comes in as the result, and different local churches, in their 
sense of the need of order, have substituted mere local and contra- 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Canons. 405 


dictory laws for them, which lack Ecumenical Authority, and lead to 
endless bickerings, and sometimes to schisms and heresies. All ex- 
perience shows that. But we show that more fully in a special Essay 
On the Authority of the Canons of the First Four Ecumenical Councils 
in another volume. In another volume on Nicaea we purpose, if God 
will, to annotate its Canons more at length. The size of this volume 
and the amount of our notes, forbid it to be done here. 


The Greek of the Nicene Canons here given is from Tome II. of 
Ralle and Potle’s Syztagma, Athens, A. Ὁ). 1852. 


The English translation mainly accords with that, though we 
have compared Bruns’ and Lambert’s Greek texts. Bruns’ Canones 
were published at Berlin, A. D. 1839, and Lambert’s Codex Canonum 
Ecclesiae Universae in Yondon; I judge from his Preface, in 1868. 
The date is not on his title page. I will speak of different readings, 
of any importance, when in another volume I come to annotate these 
Canons, 


406 Chapter VIII. 


CANONS. 


OF THE HOLY FIRST ECUMENICAL SYNOD, WHICH 
WAS HELD AT NICAEA IN BITHYNIA, IN 
THE YEAR OF OUR LORD, 3325. 


ee 9555 


CANON I. 


PERSONS CASTRATED OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL NOT TO 
BE CLERICS. 

b) ~ ΄ * ΄ ΄ 1d 
Εἴ τις ἐν νόσῳ ὑπὸ ἰατρῶν ἐχειρουργήϑη, ἣ ὑπὸ βαρδάρων ἐξετμήϑη, οὗτος 
μενέτω ἐν τῷ κλήρῷ. Εἰ δέ τις ὑγιαίνων ἑαυτὸν ἐξέτεμε, τοῦτον χαῖ ἐν τῷ χλήρῳ 
ἐξεταζόμενον, πεπαῦσϑαι προςήχει' χαὶ ἐκ τοῦ δεῦρο, μηδένα τῶν τοιούτων χρῆναι 
προάγεσϑαι. “ὥσπερ δὲ τοῦτο πρόδηλον, ὅτι περὶ τῶν ἐπιτηδευόντων τὸ πρᾶγμα, 
χαὶ τολμώντων ἑαυτοὺς ἐχτέμνειν εἴρηται: οὕτως, εἴ τινες ὑπὸ βαρδάρων, ἢ δεσ- 

-« > ΄ ¢ ΄ \ ” Mme > , >) -- 
ποτῶν εὐνουχίσϑησαν, edptoxowto δὲ ἄλλως ἄξιοι, τοὺς τοιούτους εἰς χλῆρον 


προσίεται ὁ χανών. 


CANON 11. 
NEWLY BAPTIZED PERSONS NOT TO BE ORDAINED. 


᾿Επειδὴ πολλὰ, ἤτοι ὑπὸ ἀνάγχης, ἢ ἄλλως ἐπειγομένων τῶν ἀνϑρώπων, εγέ- 
΄ 7 > , -" , ” 
νετο παρὰ τὸν χανόνα τὸν ἐχχλησιαστιχὸν, ὥστε ἀνϑρώπους ἀπὸ ἐϑνιχοῦ δίου ἄρτι 


προσελϑόντας τῇ πίστει, χαὶ ἐν ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ χατηχηϑέντας, εὐϑὺς ἐπὶ τὸ πνεομα- 
τιχὸν λουτρὸν ἄγειν, καὶ ἅμα τῷ βαπτισϑῆναι προάγειν εἰς ἐπισχοπὴν, ἢ εὶς Tpsabv- 
τέριον͵ χαλῶς ἔδοξεν ἔχειν, τοῦ λοιποῦ μηδὲν τοιοῦτο γίνεσϑαι'" χαὶ γὰρ χαὶ χρόνου 
det τῷ χατηχουμένῳ, xat μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα, δοκιμασίας πλείονος. ages γὰρ τὸ 


ἀποστολιχὸν γράμμα, τὸ λέγον: My νεόφυτον, ἵνα μὴ τυφωϑεὶς εἰς χρέμα ἐμπέσῃ, 
χαὶ παγίδα τοῦ διαθόλου, Εἰ δὲ, προϊόντος τοῦ χρόνου, φυχιχόν τι ἁμάρτημα 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Canons. 407 


CANONS 


OF THE HOLY FIRST ECUMENICAL SYNOD, WHICH 
WAS HELD AT NICAEA IN BITHYNIA, IN 
THE “YEAR OF OUR, LORD) 325. 


Oe -------ς-ς-ς-- 


CANON I. 


PERSONS CASTRATED OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL NOT TO 
BE CLERICS. 


If any one has had an operation performed upon him in sickness 
by physicians, or has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain in 
the clericate. Butif any one in health has castrated himself, it 15 
becoming that when detected, even though he be in the clericate, that 
he cease [from ministering]; and from this time forth no such person 
may be promoted: But as it is manifest beforehand that this is said 
of those who contrive that thing on purpose, and who dare to castrate 
themselves, so [on the other hand], if any have been made eunuchs 
by barbarians, or by [their] masters, and are found otherwise worthy; 
the rule (627) admits such among the clergy. 


CANON: Te 
NEWLY BAPTIZED PERSONS NOT TO BE ORDAINED. 


Forasmuch as, either from necessity, or otherwise by the pressure 
brought to bear by [different] men, many things have been done con- 
trary to the ecclesiastical rule, so that men who have just come from 
a heathen life to the faith, and have been catechized (628) for a 
little time, have been straightway led to the spiritual bath, and at 
the same time that they were baptized (629) were promoted to the 
episcopate or to the presbyterate; it has seemed good that hereafter 
no such thing take place; for the catechumen needs time (630), and 


(627). Or “the canon,”’ ὁ κανών. 

(628). That is.‘‘zustructed.”” 

(629). Literally, ‘‘dipped.” 

(630). ‘That is, to be fully instruéted in the Christian Faith. 


408 Chapter VIII. 


δ ΄ Ν \ , Ν δ , “Ὁ ~ , 
εὑρεϑείη περὶ τὸ πρόσωπον, xat ἐλέγχοιτο ὑπὸ δύο, ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων, πεπαύσθω 
6 τοιοῦτος τοῦ χλήρουι “Ὁ δὲ παρὰ ταῦτα ποιῶν, ὠς ὑπεναντία τῇ μεγάλῃ ovy- 


60w ϑρασυνόμενος, αὐτὸς χινδυνεύσει περὶ τὸν κλῆρον 
7 ρ μ ) ρ i D 


CANON IIT. 


NO CLERIC TO HAVE A SYNISACT WOMAN—EXCEPTIONS. 

’Annydpevoe καϑόλου ἡ μεγάλη σύνοδος, μήτε ἐπισχόπῳ, μήτε πρεσδυτέρῳ, 
μήτε διαχόνῳ, μήτε ὅλως τινὶ τῶν ἐν χλήρῳ, ἐξεῖναι συνείσαχτον' ἔχειν, πλὴν εἰ 
μὴ ἄρα μητέρα, ἣ ἀδελφὴν, ἢ θείαν, ἢ ἃ μόνα πρόσωπα πᾶσαν ὑποφέαν διαπέφ- 
εὐγεν. 


CANON IV. 


RULE AS TO THE APPOINTMENT AND ORDINATION OF BISHOPS ; 
POWER OF THE METROPOLITAN. 
᾿Επίσχοπον προσήχει μάλιστα μὲν ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐν τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ καϑίστασ- 
Bar εἰ δὲ δυσχερὲς εἴη τὸ τοιοῦτο, ἢ διὰ χατεπείγουσαν ἀνάγχην, ἢ διὰ μῆχος 
ὁδοῦ, ἐξ ἅπαντος τρεῖς ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συναγομένους, συμῴψήφων γινομένων xar 
τῶν ἀπόντων, χαὶ συντιθεμένων διὰ γραμμάτων, τότε τὴν χειροτονίαν ποιεῖσϑαι" 
τὸ δὲ χῦρος τῶν γινομένων δίδοσϑαι καθ᾽ ἑχάστην ἐπαρχίαν τῷ μητροπολέίτῃ. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Canons. 409 


after the baptism (631) there is need of more probation, for the apos- 
tolic written statement is clear, which says, ‘‘Vot one newly planted 
(632), lest being lifted up with pride he fall into condemnation, and 
a snare of the devil’”’ (633). But if, as time goes on, some soulish 
(634) sin be found about the person, and if it be proved by two or 
three witnesses, let such a one cease from the Clericate. But he who 
acts contrary to these things (635) will himself hazard his own posi- 


tion in the Clericate as acting audaciously in opposition to the Great 
Syxod. 


CANON? TLE 


NO CLERIC TO HAVE A SYNISACT WOMAN—EXCEPTIONS. 


The Great Synod has wholly forbidden that it should be allowed 
either to Bishop, or to Presbyter, or to Deacon, or to any one at all of 
those who are in the Clericate to have a co-in-led woman except a 
mother, or a sister, or an aunt, or such persons alone as have escaped 
all suspicion. 


CANON: IV. 


RULE AS TO THE APPOINTMENT AND ORDINATION OF BISHOPS; 
POWER OF THE METROPOLITAN. 

It is especially fitting that a Bishop be appointed by all the 
Bishops who are in the Province. But if such a thing be difficult, 
owing either to urgent necessity, or to the length of the way, it is 
becoming that at least three be gathered to the same place, the absent 
Bishops also giving their votes and expressing their agreement by 
letters ; then the ordination is to be performed. But the ratifying of 
the things done in each Province is to be given to the Metropolitan. 


(631). Literally, ‘“‘after the dipping.” 


(632). The Greek, νεόφυτον, of I. Tim., III., 6, has this meaning. Compare 
also, Rom. VI., 5, and Titus III, 5. The primitive immersion has a symbol of 
planting, Rom. VI., 5; and of a new birth out of the womb of the water, Titus 
IIl.,5. The reference is to that mode here. The common mode of baptism in A. 
D. 325, and indeed for the first 1200 years of the Christian era was by trine im- 
mersion in all Churches, as it is in the Greek Church till this hour, and as it 
was in the Church of England till the last half of the sixteenth century. 


(6352). 10 dim: 5 1ΠῚ- Ὁ: 
_ (634). That is, some sin of the fallen human soul, that is, some enimal 
sin. 
(635). That is, the enactments of the above canon. 


410 Chapter VII, 


CANON V. 


RIGHT AND POWER OF EACH BISHOP TO DISCIPLINE HIS CLERGY 
AND LAITY—THEIR RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE SYNOD OF 
THEIR PROVINCE FROM THEIR OWN BISHOP’S 
DECISION—IT MUST MEET TWICE A 
A YEAR TO RECEIVE SUCH AP- 

PEALS AND TO DECIDE 
SUCH CASES. 

Περὶ τῶν ἀχοινωνήτων γενομένων, εἴτε τῶν ἐν χλήρῳ, εἴτε τῶν ἐν λαϊχῷ 
τάγματι, ὑπὸ τῶν καθ᾽ ἑχάστην ἐπαρχίαν ἐπισχόπων, χρατείτω ἡ γνώμη, χατὰ τὸν 
χανόνα τὸν διαγορεύοντα, τοὺς ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρων ἀποδληϑέντας ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρων μὴ προσίεσ- 
θαι. ᾿Εξεταξέσϑω δὲ, μὴ μιχροφυχίᾳ, ἢ φιλονειχίᾳ, ἤ τινι τοιαύτῃ ἀηδίᾳ τοῦ 
ἐπισχόπου, ἀποσυνάγωγοι γεγένηνται. Ἵνα οὖν τοῦτο τὴν πρέπουσαν ἐξέτασιν 
hapbdvot, καλῶς ἔχειν ἔδοξεν, Exdatov ἐνιαυτοῦ, χαθ᾽ ἕχάστην ἐπαρχίαν δὶς τοῦ 
ἔτους συνόδους γίνεσθαι: ἵνα χοινῇ πάντων τῶν ἐπισχόπων τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπὶ τὸ 
αὐτὸ συναγομένων, τὰ τοιαῦτα ζητήματα ἐξετάξηται, χαὶ οὕτως οἱ ὁμολογουμένως 
προσχεχρουχότϑς τῷ ἐπισχόπῳ, χατὰ λόγον ἀκοινώνητοι παρὰ πᾶσιν εἶναι δόξωσι, 
μέχρις ἂν τῷ χοινῷ τῶν ἐπισχόπων δόξῃ τὴν φιλανϑρωποτέραν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἐχ- 
θέσθαι φῆφον. Al δὲ σύνοδοι γινέσϑωσαν, μία μὲν πρὸ τῆς Τεσσαραχοστῆς, ἵνα 
πάσης pixpodwytas ἀναιρουμένης, τὸ δῶρον καϑαρὸν προσφέρηται τῷ Θεῷ" dev 
τέρα δὲ, περὶ τὸν τοῦ μετοπώρου χαιρόν. 


CANON VI. 


THE PRIVILEGES AND RIGHTS OF METROPOLITANS AND OF PROV- 
INCES. 

Ta ἀρχαῖα ἔθη xpatetro, τὰ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, καὶ Λιδύῃ xad Πενταπόλει, ὥστε 
τὸν ἐν᾿ἠλεξανδρείᾳ ἐπίσχοπον πάντων τούτων ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίαν: ἐπειδὴ χαὶ τῷ 
ἐν “Ρώμῃ ἐπισχόπῳ τοῦτο σύνηϑές ἐστιν, «(Ὁμοίως δὲ χαὶ χατὰ τὴν ᾿Αντιόχειαν, 
χαὶ ἐν ταὶς ἄλλαις ἐπαρχίαις, τὰ πρεσδεῖα σώξεσϑαι ταῖς ἐχχλησίαις. Ka%ddov 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Lts Canons. 411 


CANON V. 


RIGHT AND POWER OF EACH BISHOP TO DISCIPLINE HIS CLERGY 
AND LAITY—THEIR RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE SYNOD OF 
THEIR PROVINCE FROM THEIR OWN BISHOP’S 
DECISION—IT MUST MEET TWICE A 
YEAR TO RECEIVE SUCH AP- 

PEALS AND TO DECIDE 
SUCH CASES. 

In regard to those who have become excommunicate, whether 
they be in the Clericate or of lay rank, by the Bishops in each prov- 
ince, let the judgment prevail in accordance with the rule, which 
declares that those who have been cast off by some be not admitted 
by others. But let inquiry be made, whether they have not become 
unchurched, through [some] littleness of soul or contentiousness, or 
some such unpleasantness on the part of the Bishop. In order there- 
fore that this thing may receive due examination, it seemed good 
that there should be two Synods each year in each province, so that, 
by the common consent of all the Bishops of the Province, being 
gathered in the same place in common assembly, such questions may 
be examined into, and so those who have confessedly offended against 
the Bishop may appear with reason to be excommunicate with all, 
until it may seem good to the common body of the Bishops to give a 
milder vote on their behalf. And let the Synods take place, one be- 
fore Tessaracost (636), in order that all littleness of soul being 
removed, the gift may be offered pure to God; and let the second 
be about the time of the end of autumn. 


CANON VI. 


THE PRIVILEGES AND RIGHTS OF METROPOLITANS AND OF PROV- 
INCES. 

Let the ancient customs prevail which are in Egypt, and in Libya, 
and in Pentapolis, so that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have the 
authority over all those places, since also that thing is customary to 
the Bishop in Rome. And likewise in Antioch, and in the other 


(636). That is Lent, which, however, was then not so long as now. See 
Bingham’s Antiquities, Book XXI., Chapter I. 


412 Chapter VIII, 


δὲ πρόδηλον ἐχεῖνο" ὅτι, εἴ τις χωρὶς γνώμης τοῦ μητροπολίτου γένοιτο ἐπίσχοπος, 

τὸν τοιοῦτον ἢ μεγάλη σύνοδος ὥρισε μὴ δεῖν εἶναι ἐπίσχοπον. ᾿Εὰν μέντοι τῇ 

χοινῇ πάντων ψήφῳ, εὐλόγῳ οὔσῃ, καὶ χατὰ χανόνα ἐχχλησιαστιχὸν, δύο, ἢ τρεῖς 
> > , ᾿ ᾿ 5 ΡῈ Z. if ~ , ~ 

Ov οἰχείαν φιλονεικίαν ἀντιλέγωσι͵ χρατείτω ἡ τῶν πλειόνον ψῆφος 


CANON VII. 


THE RANK OF THE BISHOP OF JERUSALEM UNDER HIS METROPOL= 
ITAN IN HIS PROVINCES. 
᾿Επειδὴ συνήϑεια χεχράτηχε, καὶ παράδοσις ἀρχαία, ὥστε τὸν ἐν Αἰλίᾳ ἐπί- 
σχοπον τιμᾶσϑαι, ἐχέτω τὴν ἀχολουϑίαν τῆς τιμῆς" τῇ μητροπόλει σωξομένου τοῦ 
οἰχείου ἀξιώματος. 


CANON VIII. 


HOW THE NOVATIANS, THAT IS THE CATHARISTS, ARE TO BE RE- 
CEIVED. 

Περὶ τῶν ὀνομαξόντων μὲν ἑαυτοὺς Καϑαρούς ποτε, προσερχομένων δὲ τῇ 
χαϑολιχῇ καὶ ἀποστολιχῇ ἐχχλησίᾳ, ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ χαὶ μεγάλῃ συνόδῳ͵ ὥοτε χειρο- 
θετουμένους αὐτοὺς, μένειν οὕτως ἐν τῷ χλήρῳ. Πρὸ πάντων δὲ τοῦτο ὁμολογῆσαι 
αὐτοὺς ἐγγράφως προσὴχει, ὅτι συνϑήσονται καὶ ἀχολουϑήσουσι τοῖς τῆς χαϑολ- 
ιχῆς χαὶ ἀποστολιχῆς ἐχχλησίας δόγμασι" τουτέστι, καὶ διγάμοις κοινωνεῖν χαὶ τοῖς 
ἐν τῷ διωγμῷ παροπεπτωχόσιν, ἐφ᾽ ὧν χαὶ γρόνος τέταχται, χαὶ καιρὸς ὥρισται" 
ὥστε αὐτοὺς ἀχολουϑεῖν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς δόγμασι τῆς χαϑολιχῆς ἐχχλησίας, * Evia 
μὲν οὖν πάντες, εἴτε ἐν χώμαις, εἴτε ἐν πόλεσιν, αὐτοὶ μόνοι εὁρίσχοιντο χείροτον- 
ηϑέντες, οἱ εὑρισχόμενοι ἐν τῷ χλήρῳ, ἔσονται ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ σχήματι. Εἰ δὲ τοῦ 
τῆς καϑολιχῆς ἐχχλησίας ἐποσχόπου, ἢ πρεσδυτέρου ὄντος, προσέρχονταΐί τινες, 
πρόδηλον, ὡς 6 μὲν ἐπίσχοπος τῆς ἐχχλησίας ἕξει τὸ ἀξίωμα τοῦ ἐπισχόπου" ὁ δὲ 


ὀνομαζόμενος παρὰ τοῖς λεγομένοις Καϑαροῖς ἑπίσχοπος, τὴν τοῦ πρεσδυτέρου 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Canons. 413 
a EE NEN CI EL sted a eth oS OA 
provinces, the privileges are to be preserved to the churches. But it 
is universally clear, beforehand, that if any one should become a 
Bishop, without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod 
has decreed that such a one ought not to be a Bishop. If, however, 
two or three, through their own quarrelsomeness, speak against the 
common vote of all the Bishops it being reasonable and in accord- 
ance with ecclesiastical rule, let the vote of the majority prevail. 


CANON VII. 


THE RANK OF THE BISHOP OF JERUSALEM UNDER HIS METROPOL- 
ITAN IN HIS PROVINCE. 


Forasmuch as a custom and an ancient tradition have prevailed 
of honoring the Bishop of Aelia, let him have the second place of 
honor, the proper dignity being preserved to the metropolis. 


CANONS VIII. 


HOW THE NOVATIANS, THAT IS THE CATHARISTS, ARE TO BE RE- 
CEIVED. 


In regard to those once calling themselves Puve Ones, but [now] 
coming to the Universal and Apostolic Church, it has seemed good to 
the Holy and Great Synod that they receive a laying on of hands, 
and so remain in the Clericate. But before all things, it is becoming 
that they agree in writing that they will adhere to and will follow the 
decrees of the Universal and Apostolic Church; that is Zo say, that 
they will commune both with digamists and with those who have 
fallen away in the persecution regarding whom a time has been ap- 
pointed and a period has been decreed; and that they will follow in 
all things the decrees of the Universal Church. Wherever, therefore, 
whether in villages or in cities, all who are found ordained are of 
themselves alone, those found in the Clericate shall be in the same 
positions. But if some of them come [0 the Faith] where there is a 
Bishop or a presbyter of the Universal Church, it is clearly under- 
stood beforehand that the Bishop of the Church shall have the dig- 
nity of the Bishop, but he who is named Bishop among those termed 
Pure Ones shall. have the honor of the presbyter, unless, indeed, it 
may seem good to the Bishop that he (637) share the honor of the 


(637). That is, the Novatian Bishop. 


414 Chapter VIII, 


\ ofa ee \ ΞῚ oY ell - ip ~ , ~ ~ ~ ΄ 
τιμὴν ἕξει" πλὴν εἰ μὴ ἄρα δοχοίη τῷ ἐπισχόπῳ, τῆς τιμῆς τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτὸν 
μετέχεν. Et δὲ τοῦτο αὐτῷ μὴ ἀρέσχοι, ἐπινοήσει τόπον ἢ γωρεπισχόπου, ἢ 
δ A ~ ~ , ~ ~ , ’, 
πρεσδυτέρου, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἐν τῷ χλήρῳ ὅλως δοχεῖν εἶναι" ἵνα μὴ ἐν τῇ πόλει δύο 
ἐπίσχοποι ὦσιν. 


CANON IX. 


THE ORDINATION OF UNEXAMINED, IMMORAL, OR UNBELIEVING 
PERSONS TO THE PRESBYTERATE IS MADE NULL AND VOID. 

Ev τινες ἀνεξετάστως προήχϑησαν πρεσδύτεροι, ἢ ἀναχρινόμενοι ὡμολόγησαν 
τὰ ἁμαρτήματα αὐτοῖς, χαὶ, ὁμολογησάντων αὐτῶν, παρὰ χανόνα χινούμενοι of 
ἄνϑρωποι τοῖς τοιούτοις χεῖρα ἐπιτεϑείχασι͵ τούτους ὁ χανὼν οὐ προσίεται" τὸ 
γὰρ ἀνεπίληπτον ἐχδιχεῖ ἡ χαϑολιχὴ ἐχχλησία, 


CANON X. 


THE ORDINATION OF THOSE WHO HAVE FALLEN INTO IDOLATRY OR 
DENIAL OF CHRIST IN TIME OF PERSECUTION, ETC., 
FORBIDDEN AND MADE NULL AND VOID. 

“Ὅσοι προεχειρίσϑησαν τῶν παραπεπτωχότων, nat ἄγνοιαν,  xat προειδότων 
τῶν προχειρισαμένων͵ τοῦτο οὐ προχρίνει τῷ χανόνι τῷ ἐκχλησιαστιχῷ" γνωσϑέντες 
γὰρ, καϑαιροῦνται. 


CANON. ΧΙ. 


HOW LAICS, WHO FELL INTO CREATURE-SERVICE OR DENIAL OF 
CHRIST WITHOUT NECESSITY, LOSS OF PROPERTY, OR DAN- 
GER, IN THE PERSECUTION BY LICINIUS, THE PAGAN, 

ARE TO BE READMITTED TO THE EUCHARIST. 

Περὶ τῶν παραδάντων γωρὶς ἀνάγχης, ἣ χωρὶς ἀφαιρέσεως ὑπαρχόντων, ἣ 


wpis χινδύνου. ἡ τινος τοιούτου. ὃ γέγονεν ἐπὶ τῆς τυραννίδος Λιχινίου, ἔδοξς τῇ 
Ave +4 ΤΕ 7 ἥ ρ $ ) yi} 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Canons 415, 


name of Bishop, but if that be not pleasing to him, he shall provide 
for him the place of a country Bishop (638), or of a presbyter, in 
order that he may, by all means, seem to be in the Clericate; and in 
order that there may not be two Bishops in the city. 


CANON IX. 


THE ORDINATION OF UNEXAMINED, IMMORAL OR UNBELIEVING 
PERSONS TO THE PRESBYTERATE IS MADE NULL AND VOID. 

If any persons have been promoted to be presbyters without ex- 
amination, or if, while being examined, they have confessed their 
sins, and after they have [thus] confessed, men have, nevertheless, been 
moved to act against rule,and have laid hands on them, the rule does 
not admit those persons. For the Universal Church justifies [only] 
what is irreproachable. 


CANON X. 


THE ORDINATION OF THOSE WHO HAVE FALLEN INTO IDOLATRY OR 
DENIAL OF CHRIST IN TIME OF PERSECUTION, ETC., 
FORBIDDEN AND MADE NULL AND VOID. 

All those who have fallen away [ from the faith], and have [nev- 
ertheless] been promoted in ignorance [of their fault], or even if those 
who promoted them knew beforehand [of their sins], that works no 
prejudice to the church rule; for when they are discovered they are 
deposed. 


CANON, ΧΙ. 


HOW LAICS, WHO FELL, INTO CREATURE-SERVICE OR DENIAL OF 
CHRIST WITHOUT NECESSITY, LOSS OF PROPERTY, OR DAN- 
GER, IN THE PERSECUTION BY LICINIUS, THE PAGAN, 

ARE TO BE READMITTED TO THE EUCHARIST. 

In regard to those who transgressed, without necessity, or with- 
out loss of goods, or without danger or without any such thing, as it 


(638). That is, of a Chorepiscopus; Greek, χωρεπισκόπου, 


416 Chapter VIII. 


συνόδῳ, εἰ χαὶ ἀνάξιοι ἦσαν φιλανϑρωπίας, ὅμως γρηστεύσασϑαι εἰς αὐτούς. 
ὕρσοι οὖν γνησίως μεταμέλονται, τρία ἔτη ἐν ἀχροωμένοις ποιήσουσιν, ὡς πιστοὶ, 
xat ἑπτὰ ἔτη ὑποπεσοῦνται" δύω δὲ ἔτη χωρὶς προσφορᾶς χοινωνήσουσι τῷ λαῷ 
τῶν προσευχῶν. 


CANON XII. 


HOW THOSE CHRISTIANS WHO APOSTATIZED TO IDOLATRY AND 
ENTERED THE MILITARY SERVICE OF LICINIUS THE 
PAGAN ENEMY OF CHRIST AND OF CHRIS- 

TIANS, ARE TO BE RECEIVED. 


Of δὲ προσχληϑέντες μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς χάριτος, χαὶ τὴν πρώτην ὁρμὴν ἐνδειξάμε- 
>I A Ζ'. A \ ~ Ων Ἂν >) ~ » ΄ 
vot, καὶ ἀποϑέμενοι τὰς ξώνας, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐπὶ τὸν οἰχεῖον ἔμετον ἀναδραμόν- 
τες, ὡς χύνες, ὡς τινὰς χαὶ ἀργύρια προέσϑαι, χαὶ βενεφιχίοις χατορϑῶσαι τὸ 
ἀναστρατεύσασϑαι" οὗτοι δέχα ἔτη ὑποπιπτέτωσαν, μετὰ τὸν τῆς τριετοῦς ἀχροάς- 
, > 9 & 1 ΄ ΄ - te ‘ ΄ Ν \ 
ews χρόνον. "Ey? ἅπασι δὲ τούτοις, προσήχει ἐξετάξειν τὴν προαίρεσιν χαὶ τὸ 
εἶδος τῆς μετανοίας. Ὅσοι μὲν γὰρ φόδῳ, χαὶ δάχρυσι, χαὶ ὑπομονῇ, xa ἀγαὃ- 
οεργίαις, τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν ἔργῳ, xat οὐ σχήματι, ἐπιδείχνυνται, οὗτοι πληρώσαντες 
τὸν χρόνον τὸν ὡρισμένον τῆς ἀχροάσεως,͵ εἰχότως τῶν εὐχῶν χοινωνήσουσι, μετὰ 
τοῦ ἐξεῖναι τῷ ἐπισχόπῳ χαὶ φιλανϑρωπότερόν τι περὶ αὐτῶν βουλεύσασϑαι. Ὅσοι 
δὲ ἀδιαφόρως ἤνεγχαν, χαὶ τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ εἰσιέναι εἰς τὴν ἐχχλησίαν ἀρχεῖν ἑαυτοῖς 
a f \ og ΄ ΄ 
ἡγήσαντο πρὸς τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν, ἐξ ἅπαντος πληρούτωσαν τὸν χρόνον. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Canons. 417 


happened under the tyranny of Licinius, it has seemed good to the 
Synod, although they were unworthy of clemency, nevertheless, to 
be merciful to them. As many, therefore, of the Faithful, as sin- 
cerely repent, shall spend three years among the Hearers, and shall 
prostrate themselves seven years, and shall take part with the Laity 
in the prayers alone, without [partaking of the] offering (639), for 
two yeass, 


CANON XII. 


HOW THOSE CHRISTIANS WHO APOSTATIZED TO IDOLATRY AND 
ENTERED THE MILITARY SERVICE OF LICINIUS THE 
PAGAN ENEMY OF CHRIST AND OF CHRIS- 

TIANS, ARE TO BE RECEIVED. 


As to those who were called by grace, and displayed the first ardor 
[of a Christian], and put off their belts, but afterwards, like dogs, ran 
back to their own vomit, as some have even expended money and 
have reinstated themselves in the army by favors; let them prostrate 
themselves for ten years after the time of the three years during 
which they have been Hearers; and in all those years it behooves to 
examine the sincerity, and the manner of their repentance; for as 
many as show forth their conversion by fear and by tears, and by 
patience, and by good works, in deed and not in [mere] pretence, 
those after they have fulfilled the time appointed for the Hearers 
shall, with reason, share in the prayers; and, besides, it is permitted 
to the Bishop to give some milder determination regarding them. 
But as many as have borne their sentence with indifference, and have 
supposed that the appearance of going into the Church suffices for 
their conversion, let them by all means fulfil the time. 


639. That is, without the Lord’s Supper. 


418 Chapter VITI. 


CANON XIII. 


THE EUCHARIST TO BE GIVEN TO THOSE UNDERGOING PUBLIC 
PENANCE IF THEY ARE DYING; BUT IF THEY RECOVER 
THEY MUST BE AMONG THE HEARERS TILL THE 
TIME OF THEIR PENANCE EXPIRES— 

THE EUCHARIST TO BE GIVEN 
TO OTHERS WHEN IN 7 

DANGER OF 
DEATH. 

Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐξοδευόντων͵ ὁ παλαιὸς χαὶ xavovexds νόμος φυλαχϑήσεται καὶ 
νῦν, ὥστε, εἴ τις ἐξοδεύοι, τοὺ τελευταίυυ χαὶ ἀναγχαιοτάτου ἐφοδίου μὴ aro- 
στερεῖσϑαι. Εἰ δὲ ἀπογνωσϑεὶς, καὶ χοινωνίας τυχὼν͵ πάλιν ἐν τοὶς ξῶσιν ἐξε- 
τασϑῇ, μετὰ τῶν χοινωνούντων τῆς εὐχῆς μόνης ἔστω. Kaddhov δὲ, χαὶ περὶ 
παντὸς οὑτινοσοῦν ἐξοδεύοντος, αἰτοῦντος τοῦ μετασχεῖν εὐχαριστίας, 6 ἐπίσχοπος 
μετὰ δοχιμασίας μεταδιδότω τῆς προσφορᾶς. 


CANON XIV. 
HOW CATECHUMENS WHO FELL AWAY IN THE PAGAN LICINIUS’ 
PERSECUTION ARE TO BE RECEIVED TO THE CATECHUMENATE. 
Περὶ τῶν χατηχουμένων, χαὶ παραπεσόντων, ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ συν- 


ry Ὁ - - > \ > ve “ ee \ ~ a Ω \ 
όδῳ, ὥστε, τριῶν ἐτῶν αὐτοὺς ἀχροωμένους μόνον͵ μετὰ ταῦτα εὔχεσϑαι μετὰ 
τῶν χατηχουμένων. 


CANON XV. 


TRANSLATIONS OF BISHOPS, PRESBYTERS, AND DEACONS FOR- 
BIDDEN. 
Διὰ tov πολὺν τάραχον, xat τὰς στάσεις τὰς γινομένας, ἔδοξε παντάπασι 


περιαιρεϑῆναι τῆν συνήϑειαν, τὴν παρὰ τὸν ἀποστολιχὸν χονόνα εὑρεϑεῖσαν ἔν τισι 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Canons. 419 


CANON XIII. 


THE EUCHARIST TO BE GIVEN TO THOSE UNDERGOING PUBLIC 
PENANCE IF THEY ARE DYING; BUT IF THEY RECOVER 
THEY MUST BE AMONG THE HEARERS ILI, THE 
TIME OF THEIR PENANCE EXPIRES— 

THE EUCHARIST TO BE GIVEN 
TO OTHERS WHEN IN 
DANGER OF 
DEATH. 

In regard to those about to depart fron: this life, the ancient and 
canonical law shall be observed even now, so that, if any one be 
about to depart this life, he shall not be deprived of the last and most 
necessary provision for the journey, but if any one has been de- 
spaired of and has happened to receive communion again, and is 
again found among the living, let him be among those who take 
part in prayer only. And so in regard to every one, whoever it be, 
who is about to depart this life, and who asks to partake of the 
Thanksgiving let the Bishop, by all means, with [due] examination, 
give him the offering (640). 


CANON XIV. 


HOW CATECHUMENS WHO FELL AWAY IN THE PAGAN LICINIUS’ 
PERSECUTION ARE TO BE RECEIVED TO THE CATECHUMENATE. 


In regard to those who were Catechumens and fell away, it has 
seemed good to the Holy and Great Synod, that they shall be Hearers 
only for three years, and after that shall pray among the Catechumens. 


CANON XV. 


TRANSLATIONS OF BISHOPS, PRESBYTERS, AND DEACONS FOR- 
BIDDEN. 

On account of the great trouble and of the tumults which are 

made, it has seemed good that the custom should be wholly done 


(640). By ‘‘The Thanksgiving ’’ here is meant the Eucharist, that is the 
Lord’s Supper. By ‘‘ The Offering,’’ we understand the bread and wine of the 
Lord’s Supper. On the expression ‘‘The Thanksgiving,” compare Luke XXIL., 
19; Matt. XXVI., 27, and Mark XIV., 23. 


420 Chapter VTIT. 


μέρεσιν, ὥστε ἀπὸ πόλεως εἰς πόλιν μὴ μεταδαίνειν, μήτε ἐπίσχοπον, μήτε πρεσ- 
δύτερον, μήτε διάχανον. Et δέ τις, μετὰ τὸν τῆς ἁγίας χαὶ μεγάλης συνόδου 
ὅρον, τοιούτῳ τινὶ ἐπιχειρήσειεν ἢ ἐπιδοίη ἑαυτὸν πράγματι τοιούτῳ, ἀχυρωϑή- 
σεται ἐξ ἅπαντος τὸ χατασχεύασμα, χαὶ ἀποχατασταϑὴσεται τῇ ἐχχλησίᾳ, ἐν ἧ ὁ 
ἐπίσχπος, ἢ ὁ πρεσδύτερος ἐχειροτονήϑη. 


: CANON XVI. 


NO PRESBYTER OR DEACON TO REMOVE FROM HIS OWN DIOCESE; 
PENALTY FOR SO DOING—NO BISHOP TO ORDAIN A LAY- 
MAN WHO BELONGS TO ANOTHER BISHOP’S DIO- 

CESE ; SUCH ORDINATIONS ARE INVALID. 


“Ὅσοι ῥιφοχινδύνως, μήτε τὸν φόδον τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸ ὀφϑαλμὼν ἔχοντες, μητε 
τὸν ἐχχλησιαστιχὸν χανόνα εἰδότες, ἀναχωρήσωσι τῆς ἰδίας ἐχχλησίας, πρεσύύ- 
τεροι, ἢ διάχονοι, ἢ ὅλως ἐν τῷ χανόνι ἐξεταζόμενοι, οὗτοι οὐδαμῶς δεχτοὶ ὀφείλ- 
ovaw εἶναι ἐν ἑτέρᾳ ἐχχλησίᾳ' ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν αὐτοὶς ἀνάγχην ἐπάγεσϑαι χρὴ, ἄνα- 
στρέφειν εἰς τὰς ἑαυτῶν παροιχίας" ἢ, ἐπιμένοντας, ἀχοινωνήτους εἶναι προσήκει. 
Εἰ δὲ καὶ τολμήσεις τις ὑφαρπάσαι τὸν τῷ ἑτέρῳ διαφέροντα, χαὶ χειροτονῆσαι 
ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ ἐχχλησίᾳ, μὴ συγχκατατιϑεμένου τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισχόπου. οὗ ἀνεχώρησεν 


Ὁ ἢ - ὉΠ: ἐξ ee ” » ΄ 
O cy TW χανον!ε ξεταςύμενος, GXUPOS coTW ἡ χειροτονία. 


CANON XVII. 


"HE CLERICS NOT TO FOLLOW USURY AND BASE GAIN, UNDER 
PAIN OF LOSING THEIR CLERICATE—THE SAME PENALTY 
VISITED ON THEM FOR CONTRIVING ANY THING 
ELSE FOR THE SAKE OF BASE GAIN. 


᾿Επειδὴ πολλοὶ ἐν τῷ χανόνι ἐξεταξόμενοι͵ τήν πλεονεξίαν, xa τὴν αἰσχρο- 

΄ - ΄ ΄ ΄ Θ᾿ ~ 

χάρδειαν διώχοντες, ἐπελάϑοντο τοῦ ϑείου γράμματος λέγοντος" T6 ἀργύριον αὑτοῦ 
UJ , 5 ~ , i” 

οὐχ ἔδωχεν ἐπὶ τόχῳ, καὶ δανείζοντες, ἑχατοστὰς ἀπαιτοῦσιν" ἐδικαίωσεν ἡ ἁγία 


χαὶ μεγάλη σύνοδος, ὡς εἴ τις εὑρεϑεώη μετὰ τὸν ὅρον τοῦτον τόχους λαμύάνων, 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Canons. 421 


away, which, contrary to the rule, has been found in certain places, 
so that neither Bishop nor Presbyter, nor Deacon, may remove from 
city to city. Butif any one, after the decree of the Holy and Great 
Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or shall lend himself to such a 
thing, what has been effected shall be utterly invalid, and he shall be 
put back into the Church in which he was ordained Bishop or Pres- 
byter. 


CANON XVI. 


NO PRESBYTER OR DEACON TO REMOVE FROM HIS OWN DIOCESE} 
PENALTY FOR SO DOING—NO BISHOP TO ORDAIN A LAY- 
MAN WHO BELONGS TO ANOTHER BISHOP’S DIO- 

CESE; SUCH ORDINATIONS ARE INVALID. 


Whatever Presbyters, or Deacons, or whoever at all who are found 
in the list of the Clergy, shall, audaciously, neither having the fear 
of God before their eyes, nor knowing the ecclesiastical rule, with- 
draw from their own Church, those ought, by no means, to be re- 
ceived in another Church, but every necessity must be laid upon 
them to return to their own paroecias; or, if they remain, it is fitting 
that they be without communion. And, moreover, if any one should 
dare, underhandedly, to take any one who belongs to another, and 
to ordain him in his own Church without the assent of the proper 
Bishop from whom he has withdrawn, who is in the [regular] list of 
the clergy, let the ordination be invalid. 


CANON XVII. 


THE CLERICS NOT TO FOLLOW USURY AND BASE GAIN, UNDER 
PAIN OF LOSING THEIR CLERICATE—THE SAME PENALTY 
VISITED ON THEM FOR CONTRIVING ANY THING 
ELSE FOR THE SAKE OF BASE GAIN. 


Inasmuch as many who are found in the list of the Clergy, in 
their pursuit of covetousness and base gain, have forgotten the godly 
writing which says: ‘‘He hath not given his money upon usury”? 
(641); and in lending demand usury at the rate of one per cent. a 


(641). Psalm XV., 5; XIV., 5, Sept. 


422 Chapter VIII. 


ἐχ μεταχειρίσεως, 7 ἄλλως μετερχόμενος τὸ πρᾶγμα, ἣ ἡμιολίας ἀπαιτῶν, ἢ ὅλως 
ἕτερόν τι ἐπινοῶν αἰσχροῦ χέρδους ἕνεχα, χαϑαιρεϑήσεται τοῦ χλήρου, καὶ ἀλλό- 


τρίος τοῦ xavdvog ἔσται. 


CANON XVIII. 


DEACONS REBUKED FOR ASSUMING THE FUNCTIONS AND PECULIAR 
PRIVILEGES OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS—THEIR PUN- 
ISHMENT IF THEY DO NOT OBEY THIS CANON. 


*Hidev εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν χαὶ μεγάλην abvodov, ὅτι ἔν τισι τόποις xat πόλεσι, 
τοῖς πρεσδυτέροις τὴν εὐχαριστίαν οἱ διάκονοι διδόασιν ὅπερ οὔτε ὁ χανὼν, οὔτε 
ἡ συνήϑεια παρέδωχε, τοὺς ἐξουσίαν μὴ ἔχοντας προσφέρειν, τοῖς προσφέρουσι 
διδόναι τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Kaxetvo δὲ ἐγνωρίσϑη, ὅτι ἤδη τινὲς τῶν διαχόνων 

\ ~ ~ ΄ bg, ~ ¥ ΄ ΄ 
χαὶ πρὸ τῶν ἐπισχόπων τῆς εὐχαριστίας ἅπτονται. Ταῦτα οὖν πάντα περιῃρήσθω, 

Ν é δὴ ες ; { ὃ Lae ; -~ NA Z tn) , o - \ ὲ , 
χαὶ ἐμμενέτωσαν of διάχονοι τοῖς ἰδίοις μέτροις, εἰδότες, OTL, TOD μὲν ἐπισχόπου 
ὑπηρέται εἰσὶ, τῶν δὲ πρεσδυτέρον ἐλάττους. Aapbavétwoay δὲ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν 
τὴν εὐχαριστίαν μετὰ τοὺς πρεσδυτέρους, ἢ τοῦ ἐπισχόπου μεταδιδόντος αὐτοῖς, 
ἢ τοῦ πρεσδυτέρου. ᾿Αλλὰ μηδὲ χαϑῆσϑαι ἐν μέσῳ τῶν πρεσδυτέρων ἐξέστω 

~~ ὃ ΡῈ é \ WAI x ὶ Ν »- é Ν \ Hp aA Εἰ δέ 
τοῖς διαχόνοις" παρὰ χανόνα γὰρ, καὶ παρὰ τάξιν ἐστὶ τὸ γινόμενον. Lt δὲ τις 


μὴ ϑέλοι πειϑαρχεῖν χαὶ μετὰ τούτους τοὺς ὅρους, πεπαύσϑω τῆς Otaxovias. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Canons. 423 


month (642); the Holy and Great Synod has deemed it right that if 
any one be found, after this Decree, taking usury by secret manipula- 
tion, or otherwise pursuing the matter, or asking half-wholes (643), 
or, contriving anything else at all for the sake of base gain, he shall 
be deposed from the Clericate, and shall be an alien to the list [of the 
Clergy ]. 


CANON XVIII. 


DEACONS REBUKED FOR ASSUMING THE FUNCTIONS AND PECULIAR 
PRIVILEGES OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS—THEIR PUN 
ISHMENT IF THEY DO NOT OBEY THIS CANON. 


It has come to the knowledge of the Holy and Great Synod that 
in certain places and cities the Deacons give the Thanksgiving (τὴν 
εὐχαριστίαν) (644), to the Presbyters; a thing which neither the rule nor 
the custom has handed down, [that is to say] that those who have no 
authority to offer should give the body of Christ to those who do offer. 
And moreover it has been ascertained that already some of the Dea- 
cons touch the Thanksgiving (τῆς εὐχαριστίας) (645), even before the 
Bishops. Let all those things, therefore, be done away; and let the Dea- 
cons remain within their own measures, [as] knowing that they are in- 
deed ministers of the Bishop, but [nevertheless], that they are inferior 
to the Presbyters; and let them receive the Thanksgiving (τὴν εὐχαρ- 
tstia”), in their own order after the Presbyters, either the Bishop or 
the Presbyter giving it to them. But let it not be permitted to the 
Deacons to sit in the midst of the Presbyters, for such an occurrence 
is contrary to rule and contrary to order. But if any one is not will- 
ing to obey even after these decisions, let him cease from the Dea- 
conship. 


(642). See on the above Bingham’s Antiquities, Book VI., Chapter II., 
Section 6. 

(643). This is explained by some to mean the whole and half as much 
again. See Bingham as in the note last above. 

(644). ‘That is the Eucharist. See a note on Canon XIII., above. 

(645. Ibid. 


424 Chapter VIII. 


CANON XIX. 


HOW THE PAULIANISTS, CLERICAL AND LAY, ARE TO BE RECEIVED 
WHEN THEY COME TO THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 


~ , ἊΨ ~ γ΄. ~? ΄ Ly, 
Περὶ τῶν Παυλιανισάντων, εἶτα προσφυγόντων τῇ Καϑολιχῇ ᾿Εχχλησίᾳ, ὅρος 
ἐχτέϑειται ἀναθδαπτίζεσϑαι αὐτοὺς ἐξάπαντος. Εἰ δέ τινες ἐν τῷ παρεληλυϑότι 
2 ae ‘ ~ ΄ - , Ω \ ” ΄ ~ > a 
χρόνῳ, ἐν τῷ χλήρῳ ἐξητάσϑησαν, εἰ μὲν ἄμεμπτοι χαὶ ἀνεπίληπτοι φανεῖεν ἄνα 
δαπτισϑέντες, χειροτονείσϑωσαν ὑπὸ τοῦ τῆς αϑολιχῆς ᾿Εχχλησίας ἐπισχόπου. Εἰ 
ai 5 , , > XA c , - > nt / 
δὲ ἡ ἀνάχρισις ἀνεπιτηδείους αὐτοὺς εὑρίσχοι, χαϑαιρεῖσϑαι αὐτοὺς προσήκει. 
“Ὡσαύτως δὲ χαὶ περὶ τῶν διαχονισσῶν. χαὶ ὅλως περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ χλήρῳ ἐξεταζομέ- 
$ he ᾽ Ὅ Pp XANPS 
νων, ὁ αὐτὸς τύπος παραφυλαχϑήσεται. ᾿Εμνήσϑημεν δὲ τῶν διαχονισσῶν τῶν 
ἐν τῷ σχήματι ἐξετασϑεισῶν, ἐπεὶ μηδὲ χειροϑεσίαν τινὰ ἔχουσιν, ὥστε ἐξάπαντος 
ἐν τοῖς λαϊχοῖς αὐτὰς ἐξετάξεσϑαι. 


CANON XX. 


WHEN WE MUST ALL PRAY STANDING. 


᾿Επειδή τινές εἰσιν ἐν τῇ Κυριαχῇ γόνυ χλίνοντες, χαὶ ἐν ταῖς τῆς Πεντηχοσ- 
τῆς ἡμέραις" ὑπὲρ τοῦ πάντα ἐν πάσῃ παροιχίᾳ ὁμοίως παραφυλάττεσϑαι, ἑστῶ- 
τας ἔδοξε τῇ ayia συνόδῳ τὰς εὐχὰς ἀποδιδόναι τῷ Θεῷ. 


Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Canons. 425 


CANON XIX. 


HOW THE PAULIANISTS, CLERICAL AND LAY, ARE TO BE RE€EIVED 
WHEN THEY COME TO THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 


In regard to those who were once Paulianists but afterwards fled 
to the Universal Church, a decree has been set forth that they are, by 
all means, to be rebaptized. But if some of them, in time past, have 
been reckoned among the Clergy, if they seem blameless and irre- 
proachable, let them, after they are rebaptized, be ordained by the 
Bishop of the Universal Church. But if the examination should 
find them unfit they ought to be deposed. And in like manner in 
regard to the Deaconesses, and in short in regard to all reckoned on 
the roll of their Clergy, the same type of proceeding shall be ob- 
served. But we have made mention of Deaconesses who are counted 
[by us as] such in dress [or ‘‘in rank’’ only], because they have no 
laying on of hands, so that they are, by all means, to be reckoned 
among the Laics. 


CANON XX. 


WHEN WE MUST ALL PRAY STANDING. 


Inasmuch as there are some who bend the knee on the Lord’s 
Day, and in the days of the Pentecost; in order that all things may be 
observed alike in every Parecia, it has seemed good to the Holy Synod 
that men should pray standing to God [at those times]. 


ERRATA AND EMENDATIONS AND ADDITIONS. 


Page 8, line 39, read “‘2,’’ not “‘i,’’ before “* How.” 

Page 16, on ‘‘ Copyright Law,’’ in line 3 from the bottom, add 
in a note at the foot ofthe page: ‘‘I am glad to say that since the 
above was written Congress has passed an international copyright 
law, but it will do few authors any good, for it is made in the interest 
of the publisher and the paper manufacturer, rather than to help poor 
authors, who are not rich enough to publish on both sides of the 
water, as it demands in order to be profited by it.’’ 

Page 18, line 9, after ‘‘ give,’’ read ‘‘in another Nicene volume,”’ 
and omit ‘‘at the end of this volume.”’ 

Page 24, line 1 of note, read 12) not “* a.” 

Page 25, line 16, read ‘‘ baptized,’’ not ‘‘baptised.’’ 

Page 25, line 24, add apostrophe after ‘‘ apostles.’’ 

Page 25,/in line:29, put <°o:?? 

Page 39, line 15, read ‘‘clerics,’’ not clericks.’’ 

Page42, line 32, read: 2? "not." hl.” 

Page 43, line 14, read ‘‘ World-Councils.’’ 

Page:50, heading, read" J1...-not ¥ 1.” 

Page 52, line 1 of note 34, read ‘‘adoramus,’’ not ‘‘adaramus.”’ 

Page 53, line 35, put quotation marks before ‘‘the.”’ ; 

Page 53, line 6, read ‘‘troisiéme,’’ not ‘‘troisiénne.”’ 

Page 57, line 16, put colon after ‘‘cross.’’ 

Page 60, line 29, read “" ἐπιφάνιος,"" not ““ éxg.”’ 

Page 61, line 20, read ‘‘see,’’ not ‘‘See.’’ 

Page 66, heading, read “ΠΣ ποι «1: 

Page 72, line 15, read ‘‘inconsistent,’’ not ‘‘inconsistant.”’ 

Page.76,; heading, read 11 Ὁ not “1.” 

Page 78, line 14, read ‘‘Syrian,’”’ not ‘‘Syrain.’’ 

Page 89, line 26, read ‘‘Symbols,’’ not ‘‘Symbol.” 

Page go, line 1, read ‘‘obey,’’ not ‘‘oey.”’ 

Page 90, line 2, put apostrophe after ‘‘ Nestorians.”’ 


3.3 


Errata and Emendations and Additions. 427 


Page 95, line 7, read ‘* Basel,’’ not ‘‘ Basil.’’ 

Page 148, line last but one, read ‘‘Symbols,’’ not ‘‘ Symbol.”’ 

Page 159, line 25, put a comma after ‘‘ prevail,’’ not a period. 

Pages 163 to 203, in the headings, read ‘‘ Wicaea, A. D. 325: 
Arius and his heresies,’’ instead of ‘Account of the Six Ecumenical 
Councils.’’ 

Page 164, line 27, instead of ‘‘Arius and his Heresies,’’ read 
‘“‘Arius’ own Account of his Heresy, and the Accounts of it by his 
Partisans.”’ 

Page 165, line 19, read ‘‘virtue,’’ not ‘‘virture.”’ 

Page 168, line 7, omit the last ‘‘e’’ in ‘‘ heresey.’’ 

Page 176, line 29, after ‘‘Arius’ own Account of his Heresies,’’ 
add ‘‘and the Accounts of his Partisans.”’ 

Page 179, note 1οὶ, line 15, read ‘‘ γεννηθέντα," not ““γεννθέντα."" 

Page 181, line 14, before ‘‘ Paulinus,’’ insert ‘‘was bishop of 
Laodicea.”’ 

Page 182, line 4, put ““(εννηθέντα)᾽ dire@tly after ‘‘ born.” 

Page 182, line 14, read ‘‘ fellow-heretics.’’ 

Page 182, line 17, read ‘‘ Testament,’’ not ‘‘ Testement.”’ 

Page 184, last line of note 207, insert a comma after ‘‘ used,’ and 
another after ‘‘ Dictionary.”’ 

Page 185, line 1 of note 208, change capital ‘‘0’’to small‘‘0.”” 

Page 188, line 23, add: ‘‘ Indeed, I judge that all after ‘Gaius’ 
is an addition, for the letter professes, according to its heading, to be 
from presbyters and deacons only. See the heading on page 184 
above.”’ 

Page 189, read ‘‘ Cyprian,’’ not ‘‘ Cypian.’’ 

Page 189, insert comma after ‘‘Septuagint.’’ 

Page 190, last line, read ‘‘any,’’ not ‘‘that.’’ 

Page 191, lines 12 and 13, omit, “‘ though Arius after his malig- 
nant fashion of misrepresenting,’’ and insert, instead, ‘‘for that 
seems to be Arius’ clear reference, and meaning when he.”’ 

Page 193, in line 20, read ‘‘dazo,’’ not ‘‘ az0,”’ 

Page 212, line 16, read ‘‘understand,’’ not ‘‘ understood.’ 

Page 213, line 7 from foot, read ‘‘ Constantius’,’’ not ‘‘ Constan- 
tine’s.’ 

Page 217, line 6, strike out comma after ‘‘ God.”’ 

Page 217, line 12, read ‘‘ tyrannized,’’ not ‘‘tyranized.”’ 


428 Errata and Emendations and Additions. 


Page 218, line 1, read “2, not 11." 

Page 222; liné 20, 1505 2, “ποῦ 2.’ 

Page 223, line 26, read ‘‘rejecting,’’ not ‘‘ rejectiny.”’ 

Page 225, line 22, read “ΝΘ, not “John.’’ 

Page 227, note 297, insert a period before ‘‘’AA2d,”’ 

Page 229, read ‘‘ Nicaea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies,’’ 
instead of ‘‘ Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils.”’ 

Page 230, line 26, insert quotation marks after ‘‘created.’’ 

Page 232) line 2, read ‘‘ Man,’’ not *‘ Men.”’ 

Page 233, line 26, put ‘‘or’’ in Roman. 

Page 233, line 5, put ‘‘shipper’’ in Italics. 

Page 234, line 17, read ‘‘ bowed,’’ not ‘‘ bound.’’ 

Page 237, line 8, read ‘‘contrary,’’ not ‘‘ contary.’’ 

Page 227, note 344,line 1, omit last*°i in“ Alexandriaics. 2 

Page 240, lines 26 and 27, put in small capitals ‘‘ Therefore’’ to 
‘‘bowed to’’ inclusive. 

Page 241, line 27, insert ‘‘in’’ before ‘‘speaking;’’ and ‘‘ they 
mentioned ’’ after ‘‘speaking,’’ and omit ‘‘remembered’’ in line 28. 
Page 243, line 9, put quotation marks after ‘‘ Holy Ghost.’’ 

Page 245, line 11, read ““creature,”’ not “* creation.” 

Page 247, heading, read ‘‘ Nicaea, A. D. 325: Arius and his 
Heresies,’’ instead of ‘‘ Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils.’’ 

Page 247, line 6, read ‘‘ Kunomians,’’ not ‘‘ Eunomiaus.”’ 

Page 247, line 25, omit the last ‘‘a’’ in ‘‘Cagliaria,’’ so that it 
shall read ‘‘ Cagliari.” 

Page 250, remove comma before ‘‘impiam.”’ 

Page 255, line 26, put comma after ‘“‘itself.’’ 

Page 255, line 28, read ‘‘forbid,’’ not ‘‘ forbids. 

Page 256, line 14, insert after ‘‘ that,’’ ‘‘in Acts XV.”’ 

Page 259, line 26, read ‘‘ ἁπανταχόθεν," 

Page 264, line 7, read ‘‘ Roman,’’ not ‘‘ Romam.’’ 

Page 264, line 23, remove the comma after ‘‘ Hefele’’ and put it 
aiter, “ Creed:”? 

Page 269, line ro, read ‘‘free,’’ not ‘‘ freed.’’ 

Page 279, note 441, read ‘‘chapter,’’ not ‘‘ chaper.’’ 

Page 281 to 304, read ‘‘Its Synodal Epistle,’’ instead of ‘‘Its 
Genuine Utterances.”’ 

Page'281, line 20, read ““LX:,”’ not “‘9. 


not ‘‘ ἁπανταχόνεν.᾽ 


3. 


Errata and Emendations and Additions. 429 


Page 283, line 30, insert comma after ‘‘ Ariomaniacs.’’ 


Page 285, after ‘‘Church”’ in line 285, add ‘‘As the number 
of communicants increases there should be several Dioceses, that is 
Patriarchates, and several Patriarchs, but one should be chief, and 
each Patriarchate should have its Patriarchal Council; but there 
should be a National Council of all the Patriarchates in which the 
chief Patriarch, that is the Patriarch of the first see, be it the capital, 
Washington, or New York, the largest city, should preside, and that 
National Council would be the Court of Final Appeal, except to the 
Orthodox Episcopate of the Universal Church, East and West, 
gathered in their local Councils; or, failing agreement there, in an 
Ecumenical Council, as of yore.’’ 

Page 287, line 20, read ‘‘ Crusé,’’ not ‘‘ Cruse.”’ 

Page 287, line 21, read ‘‘perusal,’’ not ‘‘ persusal.’’ 

Page 288, line 27, remove punctuation mark after ““ Alexane 
dria’s.’’ 

Page 289, last line of text, read ‘‘ Britain,’’ not ‘‘ Britian.” 

Page 292, first line of note 458, change ‘‘above”’ to “‘ below.”’ 

Page 297, line 4, change ‘‘him’”’ into ‘‘Roman.”’ 

Page 299, line 22, read ‘‘ Graeca,’’ not ‘‘ Gracea.”? 

Page 300, line 35, put the Greek in parentheses, 

Page 310, line I, read ‘‘Definition,’’ not ‘‘ def.” 

Page 312, line 33, read “editions,’’ not ‘‘ additions.”’ 

Page 313, line 27, put parenthesis after ‘‘man.’’ 

Page 316; note, line 37, read ‘‘ that,’ not ‘Cof,”? 

Page 316, note, line 38, after the parentheses insert ‘‘says.”’ 

Page 317, lines 8 and 9 of note 472, put brackets where the par- 
entheses»are., | 

Page 320, line 5, put colon after ‘‘ Cagliari.” 

Page 329, line 19, put quotation marks after ‘‘ Nicaea.’’ 

Page 340, note 503, line 2, read ‘‘Book,”’ not ‘‘ Books.”’ 

Page 349, note 525, line 15, insertcomma after ‘‘ Perceval,’ and 
remove comma after ‘‘ Palmer.’’ 

Page 369, line 15 of note 574, change last letter of ‘‘ Instruction ”’ 
to «ες ral 

Page 372, line 31, read ‘‘ Sophocles,’’ not ‘‘ Sophosles.”’ 

Page 378, line 10, omit quotation marks. 

Page 380, line 28, insert comma after ‘‘him.’’ 


430 Errata and Emendations and Additions. 
Sh en et a AO τος 10 τὸ τρις 


Page 385, line 25, read ‘‘has,’’ not ‘‘had.’’ 

Page 385, last line, put apostrophe after ‘‘diviner’’ before ‘‘s,’’ 
and quotation marks after ‘‘ suspicion.’’ 

Page 391, line 2, put ‘‘ Section ’’ before ‘‘g.”’ 

Page 400, line 5, put double quotation marks before ‘‘ More- 
Over. 

Page 400, line 6, put single quotation mark before ‘‘ to.’’ 

Page 400, line 7, put single quotation mark after ‘‘ Diocese.’’ 

Page 4oo, lines ro and 11, put single quotation mark before 
‘<’The,’’ and one after ‘‘ voice.’’ 

Page 400, line 13, put double quotation marks after ‘‘ head.’’ 

Page 200, line 23, put ‘‘ Section’ before ‘‘12.’’ 

Page 401, line 7, omit ‘‘a,’’ and after ‘‘note’’ insert ‘‘521, on 
page 345.” 

Page 401, line 8, omit ‘‘ under head 7.’’ 

Page 4or, lines 12 and 13, put ‘‘letter to his flock’’ in Roman. 

Page 412, line 7, omit ‘‘s’’ in ‘‘ Provinces.”’ 

Page 413, line. 14, omit ‘‘s”’ in ‘“canons.”’ 

Page 417, line 9, omit ‘‘ Christians.”’ 

Page 417, line 14, omit ‘‘ of a Christian,’’ and the brackets. 

Page 417, lines 17 and 18, omit ‘“‘during which they have been 
hearers,’’ and read instead ‘‘ of the hearing.”’ 

Page 417, line 22, read, “‘ hearing)” “not “Hearers,”” 

On page 181, line 15, ‘‘ Berea’’ in Bohn’s translation, is his trans-. 
lator’s mistake for ‘‘Berytus.’’ 


I ON GQ) DPS 


General Index. 


Abd Yeshua, 48. 

Abeia, 72. 

Abortion, 126. 

Absolution, judicial, 4, 6. 

Abyssinians, the, their present doétrinal position; what Creeds they use, what 
Councils they receive, 50 to 54, 84. 

Acacius the Arian, 402. 

Acacius of Melitine, 58, note. 

Achillas, Bishop of Alexandria, 165, 175. 

Achillas, a deacon or presbyter, 167, 171, 174, 188. 

Acts of the VI. Councils, 11. 

Adam, Rev. R., 35, note. 

Adoration of the Host; reje&ted by the American Presbyterians, 4, 6; condemned’ 

° by the Universal Church and the early historic testimony, Preface, page 
vi. See also ‘ Zucharist,’” and “ Sacrifice of the Mass.” 

Adultery, 126, 127. 

Aeithales, 174, 188. 

Aetius, Bishop of Lydda, an Arian, 180, 181, and 369, note 574. 

African Church, results of its idolatry, 107. 

Ahab, 115. 

Alcuin, go. 

Alexander, excommunicated by St. Paul, 106. 

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, a champion of Orthodoxy against Arius, 165, 
166, 167, 168, 173, 176, 177, 190, 191, 192, 201, 262, 368; his Epistle to Alex- 
ander, Bishop of Constantinople, 270; his Circular Letter to the Bishops 
of the Universal Church, 271; his position at Nicaea, 274; vindicated by 
the Council, see “Wetropolitans,” and 293; meets Hosius before Nicaea, 
382; is commended in the Synodal Epistle of Nicaea, 388. 

Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, note 588. 

Alexander V., Pope, 95. 

Alexander Lycurgus, 111. 

Alexandria, Council at, under Theophilus against Anti-Body men, who rebelled 
against his due authority, 197. 

Alexandria, a church of, how named, 172; how supplied, 172; persecuted, 214, 
216; rights of its Bishop in his own province guaranteed by Nicaea, 411; 
how large it was, 411. 


Alexandrian School, on Eternal Birth, as to whether God has a body, etc., Pre- 
face, lii.; 18, 110, 189, I90, 10; 192, 193. 


432 Index I.—General Index. 


Altar worship, 41, 105, 107, 114; see under ‘‘ Creature-Service,” and “ Relative- 
Worship,’’ Altar-shape of the Table not Christian, 125. See ‘““Aucharist,”’ 
and ‘‘ Adoration of the Host,’ and “ Creature-Service.”’ 

“* Always, everywhere, and by all,’ Preface, vi., and text, 70, OL, 144, 157, 158, 
159. 

Ambrose, 134, 160; on an Arian Epistle, 360, 361. 

Americans, our religious needs, what they are, 283-286; needs of the English 
and of all other Christian nations, 283-286; our wretched heresies and 
divisions, Preface, i., ii. 

Ammon or Ammonius, an Anti-Body opponent of St. Theophilus, 194-200. 

Ammonius, another, 179. 

Anabaptists, 130. 

Anastasius I., Emperor; his addition to the Trisagion, 60. 

Anathema, used by the Arians against what they deemed heresy, 340. See 
SS ATIANS.? 

Ancyra, Canon X. of, 37. 

Angels, not to be worshipped, 104. See ‘‘Zuvocation of Saints,” “ Creature- 
Service,’ Worship,’ and ““ Apfostates.”’ 

Anglican Communion, partiesin, i., Preface; its lamentable condition, i., ii., vi., 
Preface; on the VI., Synods, 2, 23; its form of the Athanasian Creed, 33, 37; 
its Creeds, 44, 95; its Articles, 44, 75, 76, 81, note, 84; 1oIl, 102; what KEcu- 
menical Councils it speaks well of, and what Creeds it uses, 95-128; its 
virtues and its faults, what it should do, 95-128; its system in America 
wrong, 100; its need an entire Restoration, 100 and after; the errors of its 
idolatrizing party, 107; treatment of some of them by Romie, 107; compo- 
sition of that party, 107; Anti-Trinitarian party in, 108; they co-operate in 
certain respects with the Romanizing party, 108, 109; the so-called Evan- 
gelicals in it, their infidelity on Baptism, 109; their looseness on Episco- 
pacy, 109; lack of discipline in the Anglican communion, Iog, 110; its 
needs in that respect, 118, 119, 120, 121; it should revise its Articles, how, 
110, 111; on the Virginal state, 111; its duty as to Monks and Nuns, 111- 
118; idolatry of some of its Monks and of others of its clerics, 114; should 
forbid its clerics to belong to any secret society, 121; its duty to restore all 
primitive Rites, and usages, 122; what some of them are, 122-128; its Mar- 
riage Service, 127; its Bishops should do their duty or be deposed, note 
525, page 350; trine immersion in the Church of England, 409, note, 632. 

Anointing, at Baptism, 124. 

Anointing the sick, 127. 

Ante-Nicene Christian Library, 14; instances of bad translations in, 14. 

Anthropomorphites, 195-200; see “ Incorporeal.”” 

Antioch; a canon of, 79; another, 268; a see of Peter; rights of its Bishop in 
his own province guaranteed by Niczea, 411. 

Antipedobaptism,; a terrible heresy, 123; its terrible results in the United 
States, preface i. and ii. 

Anti-Trinitarians in the Anglican Communion, 108; elsewhere, 130; preface, ii. 

Antonius, 71. 


7 ier l.—General Index. 433 


Apollinarianism, 8, 130. 

Afpostates; the prophets speak of creature-worshipping Israelites who yet wor- 
shipped Jehovah, as having forsaken Him, 176. 

Apostles’ Creed. See under “ Creed, the so-called Apostles’.”’ 

Apostleship, 3. 

Apostolic Canons, 77. 

Apostolic Constitutions, 31, 32, 77. 

Appellate jurisdiction, Rome’s claims to in Africa, 93. See Rome. 

Arab, the; God’s curse, 40. 

Archangel, no archangel to be worshipped, 104. See under ‘‘“dzgels,’’ and 
words there. 

Arian test-terms. See under “ Orthodox test-terms,’’ and under proper words 
in the Greek Index to this volume. 

Arianism, 8; ascribed to Satan by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, 167, 217, 
and by Theodoret, 168; its wide spread at one time by its persecuting 
methods, 214-217; by denying Christ’s Divinity and making him a 
created God, it landed in Polytheism and creature-worship, 216, 217; its 
novelty, its denial of God the Word’s Divinity, its Polytheism and its 
creature worship, denounced by St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, Lucifer 
of Cagliari, and Faustin, 217-256, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, and Preface, iv.; 
expressions which contain Arian heresy, 230, and 163-256; gave acts 
of religious service, such as prayer and bowing, to a creature, and so was 
guilty of creature service. See under ‘‘ Prayer,’’ and “‘ Bowing,” and 
““ Suicer,’’ and ‘‘ Faustin,’’ specimens of its blasphemies, 252, 253; 
referred to by Chromatius as ‘‘creature-religion,’’ or “religion of ὦ 
creature,’’ 253; the spread of creature-service the result of Arian teaching, 
253. See ‘‘ Creature-Service,’? and 253-256; Arianism antecedently an- 
athematized by St. Paul and later by Niczea, page 345, note 521; its test- 
terms, see under “ Orthodox test-terms;’’ this set on, Preface, ii.-vi. 

Arians, 130, 193 see ‘‘ Arius;’’? were bitter persecutors, 214-217; fell when 
not supported by the secular power, 216, 217; even Gibbon testifies that 
they displayed less firmness in adversity than the Orthodox, 216; Scripture 
against them, 218, 221; see ‘Arius’? and ‘‘ Arianism,” and 226; com- 
pared to the Valentinians and the followers of Paul of Samosata, 230, 231; 
creature-worship peculiar to them and to the heathen, 236, 237: the Ortho- 
dox not guilty of if, 236, 237; the Orthodox prohibition of creature-wor- 
ship approved by the Third Ecumenical Synod, 237, 239, and by the Fifth, 
239. See ‘‘ Economic Appropriation,’ ‘‘ Arianism,’ specimens of their 
blasphemies, 252, 253; they used the Anathema against what they called 
heresy, 340; are anathematized by the-God-authorized Universal Church, 
341, 342; and by Holy Writ, 345, note 521; complained of the Orthodox 
for using terms in sense but not in words in Scripture; but they themselves 
used terms not in the Scripture sense nor in the words of Scripture, 345, 
note 522; page 362, note 543; Eusebius of Caesarea admitted that Arian 
test-terms are not in Scripture, page 345, text, and note 522; the Arian 
terms were private fancies, those of the Orthodox authorized by the 


434 Lndex I—General Index. 


Christ-commissioned court, 345, note 522; Athanasius’ exposure of the in- 
consistency of the Arians in rejecting Orthodox test-words because they 
are not in Scripture, page 362, note 543; an Ecumenical Council under the 
guidance of the Holy Ghost may, in new circumstances, state God’s truth 
in new terms, note 543; Neander’s testimony to part of the same effect, 
note 543; Anti-Trinitarians of our day inconsistent like the Arians, note 
543; Eustathius brands the Arians as godless, 373; in what sense they are 
so, note 592. 

Ariminum, Council of, 215. 

Arius, the heresiarch, 55, 58, 89, 115, 136, 142; Arius and his Heresies, 163-256, 
175, 176, 295, note 462, 297, 300; Arius, 164; his character and personal 
appearance, 166; his talents, 166; his pride of intellect, 166; cheerful 
aspect of the church just before the Arian heresy arose, 169; the begin- 
ning of the Arian controversy, 170; Arius and his Heresies, 176-213, this 
includes his own statements and those of his friends as comments ou 
them; extracts from his 7halia, 220; his matters between his expulsion 
from the Church and the meeting of the First Ecumenical Council, 256, 
257; he deemed God the Word to be a creature, 176-213, 205, 207, 217— 
256, 222, 381, 382, 383; yet said that He was before all other created 
things, and that God the Father made them through Him, 207; denied His 
coeternity and consubstantiality with the Father, 213, 217-256, 226; Athan- 
asius brands Arianism as resulting in Polytheism and Creature-Worship, 
205; and as an apostasy from Christianity, 205, 217, 222, 226, 227, 232, and 
as from the Devil, 217; St. Athanasius and other Fathers to the same effect, 
213-253; spread of creature-service the result of Arian teaching, 213, 253 
to 256. See also ‘‘ Creature-Service,;’’ Arius’ writings, 176; their dates, 
178; he held that the Son of God could change as the Devil did, 178, 208; 
but seems to have rejected that horrible blasphemy afterwards, 178, 182, 
183; his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, 179-181; its creature-worship, 
polytheism, and other heresies, 181-183; his Profession of Faith, 183-188. 
remarks on, 188-200; in what sense he held to three Subsistences, that is 
three Hypostases, 186, text and note; held God to be without a body, 187; 
falsity of that notion according to others, 188-200; his statement of the 
ideas of Orthodox men on Eternal Birth, 191, 192; held God to be without 
a body, 188-200; see ‘‘ Jwcorporeal,” and ‘‘ No-Bodyites,;” his Thalia, 200; 
it was condemned in the First Synod, 200, 201; its date, 201; its text, 202- 
205; St. Athanasius on, 201, 202; Arius’ Trinity one of unlike Substances, 
203, text, and note 235, 204, 211; like Apollinaris he denied to Christ a 
human mind, and so denied the perfection of his humanity, page 206; 
made God the Son liable to suffering, 206; in what sense he was a Mono- 
physite, 206; in what sense a Monothelite, 205; held Christ not to be real 
God, but God only by communion, and not the real Logos of the Father, 
that is not the real Reason of the Father, but another Logos, 208, 218, 
219, 220, 226, 227, 228; and that he cannot know the Father perfeCtly, 208, 
205; nor even His own substance, 209; and that he is not of His sub- 
stance, 203, etc.; and that He is not His real Power, but a power in the 


Index I.—General Index. -435 


sense that the caterpillar and the locust are, 208; Arianism a novelty, 
218; from Satan, 218, 222; like the Pagans and Jews it makes the Logos a 
creature, 221, text and note; hence Athanasius and the rest of the 
Orthodox reproach him with the fact that, on his own principles, he was 
a creature-server, 170, 178, 192, 205, 217-256; see ‘‘ owing” and 
“Ὁ Prayer,” 232, twice; and see ‘‘ Creature-Service; ’’ a creature-server and 
a polytheist, 176, 182, 192, 205, 212, 213-256. See ‘“drianism,” and 221, 
225-229, 230, 232; St. Epiphanius condemns Arianism for the same sins 
and shows that Scripture forbids us to worship any creature, and that the 
Orthodox do not, 240-247; Lucifer of Cagliari brands Arianism as 
‘idolatry,’ 247, 248, 249; see ‘‘ Lucifer of Cagliari;’’ Faustin brands it 
as polytheism and creature-worship, 249-253; see ‘“‘ austin.” The 
Arians held the Holy Ghost to be a creature inferior to the Son, 209-213; 
and created by the Father through the Son, 210; they did not worship the 
Holy Ghost, 209-213; they made God the Son, as a creature, worship the 
Father; and the Holy Ghost, a creature according to them, and all other 
creatures worship the Son as a creature, 209-213; the Arian service to the 
Son was relative Creature-Service, like that of the apostate Israelites in 
the wilderness, 209-213; see ARelative Worship. The last four asser- 
tions proved from their own writings, 209-213; St. Athanasius teaches 
that to worship Christ as a creature is to turn the back on God, 227, 228, 
and notes; and fall, as do the Arians, into polytheism and paganism, 
though they vainly deny the charge, 229. See Relative-Worship. Crea- 
ture-Worship an error of the pagans and the Arians, 236; the Orthodox not 
guilty of it, 236; St. Eustathius of Antioch in the Council of Nicaea 
brands Arius as a creature-worshipper, 277. See ‘‘ Creature-Service.”’ 
Arian documents, 277, 278. 

Arius, a second, 174, 188. 

Arles, Council of, A. D. 353; 214. 

Arles, 387. 

Armenians, 53; books on them, 54, 56, 62; their present faith and practice, their 
Creeds, how many Councils they receive, 54-71; their differences from the 
Nestorians and from Eutyches according to one vartabed, 54; are Mono- 
thelites, 55; their form of the Trisagion, 55; their present duty, 60, 61; 
were long free from the use and the worship of images, 68; like the Syrian 
Monophysites, 71; do not use the so-called Apostles’ Creed, 84. See 
“ἐ Christmas.”? 

Arnold, the unbelieving, favored idolatry, 105, 108, 109; a so-called Broad 
Churchman, 108. 

Assemani, Joseph Aloysius, 46, 71. 

Assemanti, J. S., 80, note; 81, note. 

Assyrian, the, 4o. 

Asterius, the Arian, 189, 190. 

Athanasian Creed; see ‘‘ Creed, the Athanasian.” 

Athanasius, St., 18, 32, 33, 42, 71, 83, III, 115, 134, 147, 160, 171, 180, note 200, 
183, 184, 192, 201, 213 to 256, 267, 372; see also under “Arius” and ‘“Art- 


436 Index I.—General Index. 


anism,’ and ‘“Arians,’’ and 232; his ability at Nicaea, 260, 261; his text of 
the Creed, 305-308; how it differs from Eusebius’, 308 and after; his opin 
ions on Eusebius of Caesarea’s Letter to the Caesareans, 336 to 351, 344, 
note 519; 357, 359; on a Greek word, 397; on Eternal Birth, Preface ili.; on 
Arianism, Preface iv.; his Greek of the Nicene Creed, 306; its English 
translation, 307-319; its Latin Version, 319-324. 

Athanasius of Anazarbus, an Arian, 180, 181, note 574. 

Atheism, that is, being without God the Word, charged on the Arians, 226. 

Atonement, the looseness on, 108. 

Augsburgh, Confession, 142, 151. 

Augusti, 131, 135, notes; 136, 138, and after, notes; 145, 146, 150. 

Augustine of Hippo, Presbyterians on, 8; against monks wearing long hair; for 
Infant Eucharistizing, 91; against picture-worship, 107; for the No-Body 
view, 199, 200. 

Authority, neglect of noticing the difference between the Ecumenical and the 
local, 134. 

Auxano, 164. 

Awa, Mar, 49. 

Azguerd, 58. 

Azymes, 31. 

Babylonian, the, God’s curse on Israel, 40. 

Badger, 42, 43, 44, text and notes; 45, 46, 47, text and notes, 

Baird, H. M., 24. 

Balsamon, 268. 

Laptism, 15, 16; Grotius on, page 16; Rigaltius on, 16; Rabanus Maurus on, 16. 
Matthew Poole on, 16; debated between Greeks and Latins, 31; trine 
immersion, 36, 90, note; 122; 409, note 632; see Zrine Immersion; 
because of the lack of it on the part of the Latins the Greeks reject their 
baptism, etc., 90, 91; the so-called Evangelicals on Baptism, 109; emer- 
sion in,therebirth of the New Testament, 123, 409, note 632; Reformed con- 
fess it to be ‘‘the sacrament * * * of * * * regeneration,’’ 143; error of Dean 
Stanley on, 163; difference in century III., between Rome on one side and 
Ceesarea and Carthage on the other, as to the validity of heretical 
baptism, 398, 399; newly-baptized persons not to be ordained, 406, 407; 
baptism called the “spiritual bath’? by the Council of Nicaea, 407; 
baptize means dip, 407, note 629; 409, note 631; mournful and terrible 
results of Antipeedobaptist heresy in the United States, Preface i. 

Bar-Hebraeus, 80, note; 81, note. 

Barsumas, 71, 72. 

Basil of Ancyra, near to Orthodoxy in meaning but rejected the expression, 
“of the same substance,’’ 403. 

Basil the Great, 71, 215, 396-400, text and notes. 

Baucalis, 172. See ‘‘ Alexandria.” 

Bede, Venerable, on Arianism, 215. 

Belgic Confession, 136. 

Benedict XIII., Pope, 94, 95. 


Index I.—General Index. 437 


Bessarion, 28. 

Bethel and Dan, calves at, 109: 

Beza, Theodore, 135, 151. 

Bible, the, 3, 4, 6; pagan sin of worshipping, 105; creature-workers and im- 
age-worshippers shun its words and their sense, 402. See ‘‘Scripture,’’ 
“Bingham”? and ‘‘Relative-Worship.”’ 

Binding and loosing, power of, given to all the Apostles, 263. 

Bingham, on unleavened wafers in the Eucharist, 36, 37; on giving the bread and 
cup separately, 39; errs in one place terribly by salving over relative- 
worship, 41. See “/elative-Worship.’’ On the Trisagion, 60; on the 
Oriental Church veil, 69; on the Confirmation and Eucharistizing of in- 
fants in the Ancient Church, 91, 92; on trine immersion, 122, 123. See 
“Trine Immersion,” “Bingham, and ‘Bible.’ 

Lishops, should control all Church property, 90, 108, 118, 119, 120; should 
manage it well, 119; no man newly-baptized to be made a Bishop, 
407; rule as to their appointment and ordination, 408, 409; power of the 
Metropolitan, 408, 409; right and power of each Bishop to discipline his 
clergy and laity; their right to appeal to the Synod of their province from 
their own Bishop’s decision; it must meet twice a year to receive such ap- 
peals and to decide such cases, 410, 411; no one to become a Bishop 
without the Metropolitan’s consent, 412, 413; rank of the Bishop of Aelia, 
that is of Jerusalem, in his province, 412, 413; how Catharist Bishops and 
clerics are to be received, 412, 413; no Bishop to ordain unexamined, im- 
moral or unbelieving persons to the presbyterate, 414, 415; no one who 
has fallen into idolatry or denial of Christ in time of persecution, etc., to 
be made Bishop or presbyter or deacon, etc.; if he is ordained, his ordina- 
tion is null and void, 414, 415; how the Bishop is to readmit to the 
Thanksgiving laics who fell into creature-service or denial of Christ with- 
out force being used against them, or without danger, in the persecution 
by Licinius, the pagan, 414, 415; how he was to receive those Christians 
who re-entered the military service of Licinius, the pagan enemy of Christ 
and of Christians, and how he might lighten the term of their public 
repentance, 416, 417; how he is to order as to giving the Eucharist to the 
dying penitent; and to all the dying; what his duty is if they recover, 
418, 419; how he was to receive catechumeus who fell away in the perse- 
cution by Licinius, 418, 419; no Bishop, presbyter or deacon to be 
translated from his own diocese to another, 418, 419; how presbyters, 
deacons and lower clerics who remove from their own diocese into 
another are to be dealt with; no Bishop to ordain one who belongs to 
another’s diocese; such ordinations pronounced invalid, 420, 421; not 
to take usury, not to get base gain, 423, 424; under pain of deposition, 
422, 423; not to permit deacons to assume the functions and peculiar 
privileges of Bishops and presbyters, 422, 423; to depose them if they are 
disobedient, 422, 423; how they were to receive the Paulianists, clerical 
and lay, when they came to the Universal Church, 424, 425; the law as to 
standing in prayer which Bishops, as guardians of the canons, must. 


438 Index I—General Index. 


enforce, 424, 425; a Bishop might provide the place of a country Bishop. 
for a converted Novatian Bishop, 415; two Bishops not to have the same 
city, 415; any Bishop might shorten public penance, 417. 

Bithenus, an Arian Bishop, 210. 

Blackmore, 24. 

Bloody Mary. See “Mary the Bloody.’ 

Blunt, J. H., 195, 200. 

Bohemian Confession, the, 28, 137, 138, 140, 144. 

Bohn’s translations of Socrates, Theodoret, and Sozomen, 200, note 228. 

Bona, 87, 91. 

Bowing, an act of religious service, 104, 105, 231, note 309; Athanasius proves 
that the Logos, that is the Word, is God, because Abraham bowed to Him 
as Lord, 231, text and note 309, and teaches that all religious bowing is 
prerogative to God, 233, 234; that proved from the fact that Peter would 
not receive it from Cornelius, 234, and from the fact that the angel would 
not receive anything like it from the Apostle John, 234; that Christ is 
shown to be God because Scripture gives it to him again and again; texts 
cited in proof, 234, 235, note 323, 324; St. Epiphanius condemns the Arian 
creature-worship and teaches that bowing as an act of religious service is 
prerogative to God, and that as Scripture gives it toGod the Word he must 
be God, 240, 241, 242; and that no creature can be worshipped by bowing, 
242, 243, 244, 245; the Universal Church worships no creature, 245, 246, 
247; Faustin, a presbyter of Rome, teaches the same do¢trines, 249-252. 


See ‘‘ Creature-Service,” “ Relative-Worship,’’ ‘Invocation of Saints.”’ 
Bringer Forth of God, that expression rejected by the Nestorians, 46. See 
“« VWother of God.” 


Broad Churchman, 108. 

Bucer, 139. 

Bull, Bishop, 37, 41. 

Bullinger, 150, 151. 

Burial, Christian, 127. See ‘‘ Freemasonry.’ 

Butler, 131, 150. 

Caesarea in Cappadocia, succession of Bishops there, 397, note; 398, 399, 400; 
probably an apostolic see, 398, 399, 400. 

Calvin, 8, 139. 

Canons of the First Four Ecumenical Councils, 24; how observed in the Greek 
Church, 24, 38; in the Latin, 88; the Reformed on, 156, 157, 160; Canon 
XXXVI. of the Fourth on Church property, 90; the Canons of the first 
Four Ecumenical Synods are binding, 98-128; neglect of many of them 
in the Anglican Communion, 98-128; some of the ancients looked upon 
such of them as were agreed to by the West and the East as infallible, 98; 
their importance, 99; on clerical marriage and on celibacy, 126; Canon VI. 
of Nicaea, 154; Canon I. of, 195; the Canons of the First Ecumenical 
Council in Greek and English, 404-425 inclusive. 

Carpones, 174, 188. 

Carpzovius, 128. 


Index I.—General Index. 439 


Carthage, Councils at, 5; their action against Rome’s claim there, 93; Preface ii. 

Cassiodoreé, 274. 

Castration, persons castrated of their own free will not to be clerics, 406, 407. 

Catechumens, Canons of Nicaea regarding them, 407, 408, 417, 419, 425. 

Catharists, that is Novatians; clerical and lay. See ‘‘Vovatians.’’ How they are 
to be received when they come to the Universal Church, 413. 

Catholic, the, that is the Universal Church. See under ‘“‘ Councils, the Sta Ecu- 
menical,”’ trine immersion, the common mode of baptism in it for centu- 
ries, note 632, page 409. 

Caupones, 170, 171. 

Cave, 326. 

Celibacy of the clergy, 37, 126. 

Chalcedon. See “ Fourth Ecumenical Synod,’ and ‘Councils, the Six Ecu- 
menical,”’ 

Chancel, the open, 40. 

Charles 7., of England, 105. 

Charles IX., of France, 135. 

Chrisming’s, 124. 

Christ, the Universal Church, on the worship of His humanity, 103, 104; 
Athanasius on, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238; Epiphanius on, 240-244. See 
““ Humanity.” His two Natures, 154; no creature, but real God, 218; His 
full Divinity set forth by Athanasius, Epiphanius and others, 213-256; His 
Incarnation, 231; the sole Savior, 235; prayer in His name, page 235, 
text, and note 330; our Sole Mediator, Intercessor, and Atoner, 239; the 
sufferings of His human nature economically appropriated to His Divinity 
to avoid invoking or otherwise worshipping a creature, 233-240; the 
Arian error of worshipping Him as a creature compared to the worship of 
Nebuchadnezzar’s Image, 241, 242. See ‘YZdolatry” and “Jmage- 
Worship”? and “‘ Lucifer of Cagliari.” 

Christian burial, 127. See ‘‘ Freemasonry.” 

Christmas, Armenians celebrate Christ’s Birth on Epiphany, 57, 60. 

Chromatius, against Arianism, 253. 

Chrysostom, John, Bishop of Constantinople, 79, 90, 147, 194 to 200; his quarrel 
against St. Epiphanius and St. Theophilus, 194 to 200; refuses to condemn 
either Origen or Incorporealism, 198. See ‘‘ Hpiphanius’’ and “ The- 
ophilus.’’ 

Chrystal’s History of Modes of Baptism, 90, notes; 122, and Preface, page 1, 

note. 

Church Authority, need of, 161. 

Church of Holy Wisdom, 12. 

Church of England, trine immersion in 409, note 632. See ‘Anglican Church.’ 

Church, the Greek. See “‘ Greek Church.’ 

Church, the Latin. See ‘‘ Latin Church.”’ 

Church, the Universal. See ‘“ Catholic Church,” and ‘‘ Councils, the Stax Ecu- 
menical,”’ 

Church property, should be controlled by Bishops through their stewards, 118, 


440 Index I.—General Index. 


Church rule or Canon, binding, 415. 

Clemens, 71. 

Clergy, should be placed, removed and governed by their Bishops, 118, 119, 120, 
the Bishop must provide for them, 119; should be celibates or but once 
married and that before ordination, 126; the enactments of Nicaea on 
“ Clerics’? are as follows: No voluntarily castrated person to be a cleric, 
407; nor one newly baptized, 409; no cleric to have a co-in-led woman, 
408, 409; exceptions, 408, 409; if excommunicated or deposed, by their 
own Bishop, they may appeal to the bi-yearly Council of the Bishops. of 
the province, 411; clerics who fell into image-worship, or creature- 
invocation, or denial of Christ, in time of persecution, not to be promoted; 
if promoted to be deposed, 412. See ‘‘ Bishop,’ ‘‘ Presbyter’’ and 
“ Deacon.”? 

Co-in-led women, no cleric to have one, 408, 409; exceptions, 408, 409. 

Colenso, Bishop, 108. 

Coligny, Admiral of France, 135. 

Colluthians, 170, 171. ͵ 

Colluthus, 170; a presbyter only, he ordains; but his ordinations are rejected, 171. 

Colobion, 166; text and note. 

Commemoration of the faithful departed, 127. 

Communication of the Properties of Christ’s Two Natures (Communicatio Idio- 
matum), 130. 

Conception, prevention of, 126. 

Confession, to be guarded and dire&ted by sound Bishops only, 125; joined with 
Anointing of the Sick, 127. 

Confessions, various, of the Reformed, 131-163, 141, 155. 

Confessionum Sylloge, 128. 

Confirmation of infants, 91. 

Constance, Council of, A. D. 1414; 95, 156. 

Constantine, the Great, 155, 164, 175, 213, 372; fails at first to understand the 
vastness of the matters involved in the Arian controversy, 257, 258; 
afterwards does better, 257; follows the advice of the Bishops and gathers 
the Council, 257, 258; Hosius’ influence over him, 257, 258; puts the 
public conveyances at the service of the Bishops, and fixes up one of the 
palace buildings for them, 258, 264; is present at the great session, but 
defers to the Bishops as supreme in their sphere, the spiritual, 259, 264, 
265, 266; entertains them, 266; Eusebius of Czesarea, the Arian, flatters 
him as though his approval were better than that of the Council of 
Nicaea, 339, 340, 341; and asserts that the Emperor held his own views as 
to the non-separation of God the Word’s Substance from the Father’s, 
340, 341, and note 504; Zosimus, the pagan’s account of his conversion, 
385-388; his course after he began openly to favor Christianity, 385-388; 
made a catechumen at Helenopolis, 386, note; is baptized and dies at Nico- 
media, 386, note. 

I. Constantinople, the Second Ecumenical Synod, 1, 2, 5, 11, 13; do the Nestor- 
ians receive it? 47, 48, 49, 52; the Armenians on, 58, note; 79. 


Index I.—General Index. 441 


Constantinoplitan Creed, A. D. 381; 47, 48, 50. See ‘‘Creed of the Second 
Ecumenical Council,’ 


Constantinople, the Second Council of, A. D. 553; 58, note; 80; its Anathema IX., 
which forbids to worship Christ, ‘‘72 two Matures,’’ 90, 104, 115, 239; 
compare the references to Cyril of Alexandria’s Anathema, VIIL., under 
** Cyril of Alexandria.” 

Constantinople, patriarch of, 27, 28; wrong titles given to him, 325. 

Constantinople, the Third Council of, A. D. 680; 58, note; So. 

Constantinople, local Council of, A. D. 448; 79. 

Constantius, the Arian Emperor, 177; 213, 214, 222, 247, 248. 

Constitutions, Apostolic. See ‘Apostolic Constitutions.” 

Consubstantiation, error of, held by some Romanizers in England, 107. 

Contogontis, 33. 

Convention System of the Protestant-Episcopal Church, Ioo. 

Copts, the, are Monophysites; their present errors, 50-54. 

Corybant, 168. 

Councils, the Six Ecumenical; meaning of Ecumenical, 269; what they are, I; 
their authority and reception, 1-8; how their doctrines are regarded by 
Trinitarian scholars, 8, 9; how they compare in importance with local 
councils and the opinions of individual writers, 9; what of them 
has been translated into English, 9; their value to the mere his- 
toric student and to the man who does not profess Christianity, 9, 10; 
to what extent their acts are well and thoroughly known, Io, IT; what we 
propose to do regarding them; prospectus of this series, and what we ask 
of learned Christians, 11-20; the originals of, 17; their reception in the 
Eastern Communions, 21; the Greek Church receives them, 22, text, and 
notes; its duty as to them, 37, 40, 41; Nestorians on, 23; Monophysites 
on, 23, 56; Latins, Anglicans, Lutherans and other Westerns on, 23; 
Latins on, 88, 89, 90; their duty as to, 90-95; power of Ecumenical 
Councils superior to Rome, 94, 95; the VI. Ecumenical Councils in the 
Anglican Church, 97; their Canons, see under ‘‘ Canons of the first Four 
Ecumenical Councils.” Tooseness of some Anglicans on the Six Synods, 
their Canons, and on Episcopacy, 108; the Lutherans on, 129, 130; the 
Reformed on, 131-163; the first Four, 134; a Reformed Confession com- 
plains of the neglect of holy and necessary decrees of Councils, and asks 
for a new Council, 156; another approves the Creeds and Definitions of 
the Six Synods, 156, 157; the Westminster Confession on Councils, 157, 
158; need of the VI. as authority, 161; a basis of union, 161; fix the sense 

i of the Greek term, ἐκ, in Scripture, where the doctrine on Christ is 
involved, note 571; Councils which oppose the VI. to be rejected, note 571. 

Council, local of Alexandria; condemns Arius, 178. 

Covel, John, D. D., 24. 

Covetousness, forbidden, 421, 

Cowper, on Hosius, 280. 

Cranmer, Archbishop, 115. 

Creature-Service, 12, 24, 38, 40, 59; 167, note 146; 169, 170, 177; condemned by 
the Third Synod and the Fifth, $9, 90; exists among the Greeks, 93, 94; is 


442 


Lndex I.—General Index. 


a bar to union, 94; forbidden by the Universal Church, 103-110; Anglicans 
who were not true to that prohibition, 103-110; proper course for the 
Bishops to pursue against such, 107; see also ‘‘ Vicaea,’’ and ‘“‘ Arius,” 
and ‘‘ drianism,’’ and 192; fostered by Arianism, 214-217; condemned by 
Athanasius, 233; and by Theodoret so far as the Arian worship of a created 
Logos is concerned, 233; and by Suicer, 233; Athanasius states that Ortho- 
dox Christians do not worship a creature; but that ‘‘that 15 the error of 
the heathen and the Arians,’ 236, (compare note 553, page 365); and that 
“when we worship the Lord in flesh, we are not worshipping a creature, 
but the Creator who has put on the created body,’ 236; Arians perverted 
Scripture to try and prove creature-service to be right, 236; falsity of the 
statement of modern paganizers that προσκυνέω, ““7 bow,’’ is not used for 
the highest worship, that is the worship of God, out that λατρεύω is, 236; 
and page 227, note 302; and page 228, note 303; our duty towards all per- 
sistent creature-servers, 248, 249; spread of creature-service the result of 
Arian teaching, 253-256; though they may not themselves have wor- 
shipped angels or saints, 253; none in the Church before the Arian Contro- 
versy, 253, 254; but Athanasius and Epiphanius predicted truly that the 
Arian service of a created Son would not stop there but would be extended 
to other creatures, 254; Newman’s statement admits that result, 254; curses 
brought on the Church by creature-worship, 255, 325; blessings which 
came on the Reformed nations by discarding it, 255; the Universal Church 
forbids all creature-worship, 255, see ‘‘Wohammed,’’ the leaders of the 
Oxford movement in their Romanizing tendency did not protest against 
it and denounce it as God does, and as he demands of us to, note 525, page 
348, 349; Eusebius of Nicomedia’s teaching ends in creature-worship, 
page 364, note 550, and page 365, note 553; the Arian creature-worship is 
cut up, root and branch, by the expression in the two Ecumenical Creeds, 
“Of the same substance,’ 382; creature-servers can not defend their errors 
by Scripture, 402. 


Creeds, the general topic, 85; 334, note 487; 350-359; their value, 147; see 


“‘ Nicaea;’’? Eastern and Western types of, 334, note 487; thorough Scrip- 
turalness of the two Ecumenical Symbols; inconsistency and wrong of 
the Arians and other Anti-Trinitarians for faulting them on that ground, 
400; superior in Scripturalness to much in later Professions, Confessions 
and late local Creeds, 400-404. : 


Creed, or Profession of Faith of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, 339, 340; was it 


the basis of the Nicene Creed? 336-359; was it the Arian document 
which the Bishops of the Council tore up? 359-376. 


Creed, of the First Ecumenical Council, that is the Nicene, that is that of the 


318, pages 17, 18, 25, 28, 29, 35, 85, 95, 102, 128, 131; on the No-Body view, 
200, and Preface ii.; its adherents persecuted by the Arians, 216; when 
adopted, 262. See under ‘‘Wicaea.”? The Greek of the Nicene Creed is 
on page 306, the English translation on page 307; Was there any 
declarative Creed before it? 329, 330; Does any Ante-Nicene author 
mention any such Creed ? 330-334; the Nicene is not an amplification of 


Index I.—General Index. ° 443 


the so-called Apostles’, 334-336; Did Eusebius of Caesarea in his Pro- 

fession of Faith furnish the basis of the Nicene Creed, or is that 

Profession of Eusebius the same as an Arian document which the Fathers 

of Nicaea tore up? 336-376; Comparison between Eusebius’ Profession, 

the Nicene Creed, the Creed of Cyril of Jerusalem, and that of Rome, 

350-357; relations of those documents to each other considered, ibid; 

Athanasius’ account of how the Council negatived Arian expressions, 

357-359; is Eusebius’ Professsion the Arian document which the Fathers 

of the Council tore up? 359-376; What facts have reached us as to who 

were the most active at Nicaea for the expression ‘‘ Of the same sub- 
stance”? (ὁμοούσιον), and against Arian Creature-Service? 376-391; Hosius 

“set forth the faith in Nicaea,’’ 376-383; its Creed enshrines the Faith 

held to from the beginning, 390; who wrote the Creed of the 318 at 

Nicaea? 396-400; its Scripturalness, 4oo; the inconsistent and hypo- 

critical course of the Arian party in signing and afterwards rejecting the 

terms of the Nicene Creed which teach the Consubstantiality of the Son 
with the Father, and in pleading that they rejected them because they 
are not in Scripture, while they themselves used terms which are not in 

Scripture to express their heresy, 401-404, 400; Dissertation on words in 

the Nicene Anathema as to when the Birth of the Word out of the Father 

took place, Preface ii., iii.; another on the Creed’s teaching as to whether 

God has a body or not, Preface iii. 

Creed, of the Second Ecumeuical Synod, that is that of the 150, or Constantino- 
Solitan, 17, 21, 22, 25, 29, 35, 83, 85; during atime in the middle ages it 
was the Baptismal Creed of the Roman Church, 86; guards the doctrine 
of the Trinity better than the so-called Apostles’, 86; should be made the 
Baptismal Creed in the West again, 86; ἃ tendency to do it away is a 
mark of error, 86; a fable, perhaps, the cause of its not being yet the 
Baptismal Creed in the West, 86; in the Anglican Church, 96, 102; 
among the Lutherans, 128; among the Reformed, 131, 136, 138, 140, 142, 
144; on the No-Body view, 200. See under ‘“ Nicaea,” ‘“ Christ,’ and 
“ Councils, the Six Ecumenical.’ 

Crved, the so-called Afostles’, 3, 7, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 43, 45, 50, 67, 68; 

it is not used by the Orientals, 84; where it might be used in the West, 

86; in the Anglican Church, 97; among the Lutherans, 129; among the 

Reformed, 132-163, 136, 140, 142, 143; fable of the XII. Apostles having 

made its XII. Articles, 146; why it should not be used in baptism, but 

the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council should, note 474, pages 317, 

318; an earlier and shorter form of it may have existed before Nicaea, 

329, 330; does not appear at Nicaea, 330-334; relation of Rufinus and of 

Ambrose on it, 330-334; Marcellus of Ancyra’s, 331-334; the so-called 

Apostles’ is not the basis of the Nicene, 334-336, 350-359; is first found in 

Rufinus or Ambrose, 334; how the English Church speaks of it, 334; the 

Greeks at Florence testify that they had never seen it, 335; conclusions 

as to it, 335; the Nicene Creed is of the Eastern type, 335, 336; the early 

Roman form of the so-called Apostles’ compared with the Profession of 

Eusebius of Caesarea, with the Nicene Creed, and that of Jerusalem, 350- 


444 Index I.—General Index. 


359; reckoned in the Middle Ages to have XII. Articles, 392, note 618; - 
why, ibid. 

Creed of Jerusalem, 329, text and note 480, 330-334, see ‘“‘/Vicaea;’’ compared 
with Eusebius of Caesarea’s Profession, the Nicene Creed, and with the 
Roman Local Creed, 350-359. : 

Creed of Gregory the Wonder-Worker, 26, 33; 34, text and note; 35, 329, 330. 

Creed, the Athanasian, 32-36, 43, 45, 52, 53, 67, 68, 87; its use in the West in the 
Middle Ages, 87; in the Anglican Church, 97; among the Lutherans, 129; 
among the Reformed, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 144. 

Creed of Pope Pius IV. in the Roman Church, 87; sin of signing or approving 
τι; ,87. 

Creyghton, Rev. R,, 27; 28, note. 

Crispus, 382. 

Cross, the, 70, 114; the material cross not used in the primitive church, 91; should 
not be in Churches now, 91, 114; idolatrous worship of by some few in the 
Anglican Church, 114, 115. 

Crown of presbyters, 125. 

Cructfix, 105, 108. 

Crusé, C. F., translator of Eusebius’ History, 287. 

Customs, local, of different parts of the Church, wisest course on, 70, 92. 

Customs, universal, 91. See ‘‘ dlways,’’ etc. 

Cyprian, St., 91, 147, 158, 189 twice; 398, 399. 

Cyril St. of Alexandria, 3; 11, note; 18, 46, 47, 50, 71, 74, 79, 83, 90, 104, 107, 115, 
134, 160, 163, 192, 199, 200, 239; his Anathema, VIII., 90, 104, 115, 239, 
193; his Anathema, XII., 58, 59, 74, and 239; his XII. Anathemas, 47, 74, - 
90, 104, 239; misunderstood by Luther, 3; St. Cyril of Alexander is op- 
posed by the Nestorians, 46, 47, 50, 90, 104, 107, 115; and referred to with 
approval by the Monophysites, but misunderstood by them, 71, 74, 79; re- 
ferred to with approval by a Reformed Confession, 134, 160; on Eternal 
Birth, 18, 83, 192; as to God’s having a body, 199, 200, 193-199; against the 
Real Presence of Christ’s Divinity, and of the flesh and blood of the body 
born of Mary on the table in the Eucharist, and against the view that they 
are eaten there, 50; see, besides, a Dissertation to be published on Ephe- 
sus on that theme. St. Cyril was outrageously abused by the Nestorian 
Theodoret, 163. 

Cyril of Jerusalem, 123; 329, note 480; 331, and Preface i., note. 

Damas, 400. 

Dan and Bethel, calves at, 109. 

DeaconesseS, 425. 

Deacons, not to be translated to another diocese, 421; penalty, 421; not to assume 
the functions or privileges of Bishops or Presbyters, 423; penalty, 423. 

Dead, prayers for, 127. 

DeBroglie, on Arian persecutions, 214; on Gelasius of Cyzicus, 327. 

Decologue, 137. 

Decretals, the False of Isidore, 89. 

De Ferney, 147. 

Definition, Norms of, 89. 


Index I.—General Index. 445 


Deipara, 130. 

Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, Smith and Cheetham’s, 14. 

Diocletian, 175. 

Diodore of Tarsus, 49, 58, note; fault of the Syrian Bishops in not excommuni- 
cating him, 106. 

Dionysius, 71. 

Dionysius, an Armenian Bishop, 62, 64, 67, 68. 

Dionysius, of Milan, 214. 

Dionysius 777., Syrian Monophysite Patriarch, 80. 

Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, 52, 71, 76, 77, 78, 79. 

Dioscorus, or Discorus, an Origenizing monk, who denied that God has a body, 
and opposed St. Theophilus on that point, 194-200. 

Discorus, an Origenizer, 194. See ‘“‘Dzoscorus.”’ 

Dissertations on Nicaea, Preface, and 17, 18, 189, Igo. 

Divinity of God the Word, denied by some who claim to be Anglicans, 108; 
worshipped by the Orthodox, 167. 

Divorce, 126. 

Donatists, appeal to Constantine, 387. 

Dort, Synod of, 137. 

Duad, 204. 

Dulaurier, E., 57, note, 62. 

Dupin, 326. 

Duten, 35, note. 

Eastern Church, See “ Greek Church,” 

Eastern Diocese, 180. 

Eastern Empire, the, 11. 

Ebionites, 292. 

Economic Appropriation, the sufferings of the Man put on by God the Word are 
attributed to God the Word to avoid invoking a creature and other acts of 
creature-worship, 237, text and note 344; 238, 239, 240, 58, 60. 

Ecumenical, meaning of the term, 259. See ‘‘ Councils, the Six.’ 

Fdgar’s testimony on Arianism, 214-217. 

Education, should be Christian, 95. 

Edward VI, 123. 

Egypt, qui. 

Elijah, 115. 

Elizabeth, Queen, 123. 

Elvira, Council of, A. D. 305; 114. 

Emperors, great Christian did not usurp the prerogatives of Bishops, but re- 
ferred theological questions to them, and convoked them in council to 
get their judgment on them, 155; they obeyed them, 10; a Confession of 
the Reformed exhorts Emperors to follow those examples, 155. 

Emperors, the Greek, το. 

England, blessed for being true to the doctrine that God alone is to be wor- 
shipped, 104, 105; curses in store for the English-speaking nations for 
their present degeneracy on that matter, 105. 


446 Index I.—General Index. 


English-speaking nations, they must witness for God or be punished, 107. 
Ephesus, the Third Ecumenical Council, 46, 47, 52, 58, text, and note 77. 
Liphesus, A. D. 449, the Robbers’ Council, 76, 78, 79, 80, 159. 

Ephraim, 71. 

Epiphanius, 39, 40, 113, 165, 170, 183; 186, note; for the doctrine that God has a 
body, 193-200, see ‘‘ Theophilus,’ Epiphanius with his Synod condemns 
Origen the Anti-Bodyite, 198, 199; against Arianism and Creature-Wor- 
ship, 240-247; Prefaceiv. See ‘‘ Chrysostom.” 

Epiphany, 57, 60. 

Episcopacy, looseness on, 108, 109; lack of, a loss, 161. 

Eternal Birth and Non-Eternal Birth, 17; J. H. Newman on, 17, 110; Theo- 
philus of Antioch on, 17, 84, 110; Origen on, 18, 83, 110; Athanasius and 
Cyril of Alexandria on, 18, 84, 110; other writers on, 110; the Six EKcumen- 
ical Councils on, 83, 84, 110; duty of the Anglican Church on, IIo, III, 
188-193. See also ‘‘ Alexandrian School.” 

LEtchmiadzin, 58, note. 

Etheridge, J. W., 71. 

Eucharist, 43; Greek abuse in the reception, 38; worship of the consecrated ele- 
ments by the Greeks, by the Nestorians, and by the Ethiopians, 50, 53; 
and by a few idolatrous Anglicans, 107, 114; and by the Greeks and the 
Ethiopians before consecration, 53; Armenians use wine without water and 
unleavened wafers in, 57; anciently given to infants as among the Greeks 
yet, 91; deemed necessary for them, by the early Church, 91; St. Cyril of 
Alexandria against the error of an alleged Real Presence of the actual 
Divinity of Christ and of his humanity there, and, of course, of their 
worship there, and of Cannibalism there, 114, 115; see Real Presence, the 
Greeks should give the bread and wine separately as of yore; not ina 
spoon together as now, 39; irreverence of the change, 39; the Trullan 
Canon CI. forbids the present custom, 39; the Constantinopolitan the 
Eucharistic Creed in A. D. 589 in the East and in Spain, 316, 317; see 
‘* Nicaea,’ the Third Council against the alleged Real Presence of Christ’s 
Divinity and humanity in the Eucharist, and of their manducation and 
worship there, note 525, page 350; Scripture against worship of the Eucha- 
rist, 402; to be given to the dying, 419; if Public Penitents so receive and 
recover they are to fulfil their time, 419; called ‘‘the offering,” 419, text 
and note 640; Lucharist means Thanksgiving, 419, note 640, See ‘“Ador- 
ation of the Host,” and ‘‘ Sacrifice of the Mass,” 

Euchologium, the; the Greek Prayer Book, 24. 

Eudoxia, the Empress, 196. 

fLudoxius, the Arian, 402. 

Eunomian single immersion, 123. 

Eunomians, 130. 

LEupsychius, 400. 

Fusebians, another name for the Arians, 257. 

Eusebius, a monk, an Anti-Bodyite, 194-200. 

Eusebius of Caesarea, the Arian, 42, 164, 176, 179, 180, 181, 257, 272-276, 287, 


Index I.—General Index. 447 


324, 326; was his Profession of Faith the basis of the Nicene Creed ? 336- 
376; was his Profession of Faith the same as an Arian document which 
the Fathers of Nicaea tore up? 336-376; his Letter to the Caesareans, 336- 
350; his Profession of Faith and part of the Nicene Creed compared in 
Greek, 351, 352,and 354; in English, 352, 353, and 354-359; his Profession 
compared with the Creed of Cyril of Jerusalem, and with that of Rome, 
353, 354-359; his unworthy and deceptive cavil on the words, ‘‘ He was 
not before He was born,’ 346; 359, text, and note 537; 374; examination of 
the question whether his Profession was the Arian document which the 
Fathers of Nicaea tore up, 359-376; Theodoret testifies that Eusebius was 
an Arian, 338, and page 349, note 524, and note 574; so Valesius held, page 
348, note 524, and page 346; Eusebius’ perversions of, and cavils against, 
“Of the same substance,” 340, 341, and against it and other expressions 
in the Nicene Creed, 342-350; note 510; page 345, note 519; his perversion 
of it rebuked by St. Eustathius, note 510; therefore he plots against Eus- 
tathius and gets him deposed, notes 510, and 588; Eusebius’ Profession of 
Faith, 339, 340; he ranks Christ among creatures, 342, text, and note 510; 
signed the Nicene Creed insincerely, 345, note 519; 401, 402, 403; vene- 
mous and persistent against it, 345, note 519, and note 521; what was the 
relation of his Profession of Faith to the Creed of Caesarea, to that of 
Jerusalem, and to the Nicene? 350-359; 396; Athanasius’ account of his 
conduct at Nicaea, of his denial, and his after subscribing, and his letter 
to the Caesareans, 357-359; he reckons Eusebius among ‘‘the teachers of 
the Arians,’’ 359; 362, note 541. Is his Profession the Arian document 
which the Fathers of the Council tore up? 359-376; he was not the Bishop 
who addressed Constantine on behalf ot the Council, 389, 390; see ‘‘ Vz- 
caea,;’’ differences between the Nicene Creed and his Profession, and rea- 
sons for them, 391-396. See ‘‘ Vicaea.”’ 

Eusebius of Nicomedia, the Arian leader, 177, 178, 257, 268; 342, note 510; note 
533; page 358, note 574; an Arian Epistle of his read at Nicaea, 360; re- 
marks on 360, 361; reasons for believing it to be the Arian document there 
torn up, 361; that Epistle given in English, 361-369; Theodoret’s account 
of the torn up document, 369-371; Eustathius’ 371-373; Valesius’, 374; 
remarks, pro and con, on that matter, and conclusions, 374, 375, 376; 
Eusebius misrepresents the Orthodox do¢trine by implying that it makes 
God passible, 364; his representation of the Orthodox sense of Proverbs 
VIII., 22, Sept., note 559; see also Logos, his plotting against St. Eusta- 
thius of Antioch, notes 510, 588; translated to Constantinople, note 588. 

Eusebius of Vercelli, 214. 

Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, his position at Nicaea, 263; his Oration there, 
271-279; 377, note, 598; his writings, 277; Gelasius of Cyzicus on, 327; de- 
posed unjustly, note 510; Socrates unjust to, note 510; Theodoret on, note 
510; abused by the Origenist Socrates for opposing the heretic Origen, 
note 524; blunder in Bohn on, ibid.; called ¢he great, the blessed Eusta- 
thius, 388; addressed the Emperor Constantine in the name of the Council 
of Nicaea, 389, 390; refutation of the idea that it was Eusebius of Cae-. 


448 Index I—General Index. 


sarea, or Alexander of Alexandria, who made that address, 389, 390. 

Eustathius of Sebasteia, or Sebaste, a changeling, 398. 

Lutyches, he is condemned now by the Monophysites, 52, 54, 55; 58, note 72, 
twice; 73, twice; 74, 76, 79, 89. 

Eutychians, 130, 142, 144. 

Euthymius, an Anti-Bodyite, 194-200. 

Euzotus, 174, 188. 

Evangelist, the, newspaper; matter from, 4, 6. 

vanius, 71. : 
verlasting punishment, looseness on, 108. 

LEixarch, 283. 

Excommunicated, every person excommunicated may appeal to the bi-yearly 
meeting of the Synod of Bishops of his province, 411. 

Excusing faults, hinders their reform, 99. 

Extreme Unction, 127. 

Fasting, ΤΟΙ. 

Fathers, 9, 155, 160. 

Fausta, 386. 

Faustin, a presbyter of Rome about A. D. 369; charges the Arians with having 
two Gods, and hence with polytheism, 249, 250; with polytheism and crea- 
ture-worship, 251; says that ‘‘ 7he Son is proven to be very God by the fact 
that he is bowed to. For it belongs to God to be bowed to,’’ 251; the Arian 
reply to the charge admits the truth of the accusation, 252; their blasphe- 
mous reply, 252, 253. 

Fellowships, their value for theological learning, 111. 

Ferrara-Florence, Council of, see Florence. 

Ffoulkes, 326. 

Fifth Ecumenical Synod, 1, 11, 12, 104, 110, 144, 159. 

Filiation, one, Nestorian statement on, 47. 

Filiogue, the, 21, 22, 43, 44, 52; rejected, expression and doétrine, by the Greeks 
and Monophysite Syrians, 80-83, 85, 144. 

Finnish Church, 130. 

Firman, 29. 

Firmilian, 398. 

Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, 47, 78. 

Florence, Council of, 26; 27, text and note 8; 31, 335. 

Foreseat, 273; 371, note 588. 

Foresitters, 262, 266; 371, note 588, 

Formula of Concord; 130. 

Fourth Ecumenical Synod, 1, 5, 11, 37, 47, 52, 58, note 76; 77, 79, 90, 92, 104, 140, 
144. 

Fowler, Ph. H., 4. 

Freemasonry, 95, 121. See ‘‘ Christian Burial.” 

Fremantle, Canon, 334, note 489. 

French Confession, 134. 

Frey, J. S. C. F., on the Eucharistic Bread, 125. 


Index I.—General Index. 449 


Gaius, an Arian, 188. 

Gallican Sacramentary, a, 30. 

Gelasian Sacramentary, the, go. 

Gelasius of Cyzicus, of little authority, 267, 268, note 425; 271. See “ Nicaea,”’ 
and 326; page 383, note 604; page 384; a specimen of his blundering, 384, 
note 604; on Leoutius, 398. 

Gelasius, Pope, 92. 

General Councils, the expression often used for Councils not Ecumenical, 153, 
156. 

George of Cappadocia, an Arian, 214. 

George William, eleé&or, 142. 

Gibbon, 27, 59, 68. 

Gieseler, 81, note. 

God, alone to be worshipped, 104, 105, 115; England blessed for worshipping 
Him alone, and cursed for the reverse, 104, 105. See under Matt. IV., ro, in 
Index of Scripture; how Athananius deemed the term “God” and 
“*Gods”’ to be applied to men in Scripture, 219, text and notes; 220, text 
and notes; St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Anathema VIII., approved by the 
Third Ecumenical Council, forbids us to give the name God to anything 
but God Himself, 227; note 300; so St. Athanasius teaches, 235; differences 
among the ancients as to whether God has a body or not, Preface iii. 

Greck Church, 2, 13, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35; Preface i.; what it might do 
to promote Christian Union, 36; its duty, 37, 38-42; differs how from 
the Armenian, 57; Theorian on, 70; on the Procession, 82; its virtues and its 
faults, 88; for infant communion, 91; its present idolatry a hindrance to 
union, 92; wrong use of titles in, 325; trine immersion in now, note, 632, 
page 409. i 

Greek Emperor at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, 27, 28. 

Gregorian Calendar, 292. 

Gregorian Sacramentary, 90. 

Gregory, Bishop of Berytus, an Arian, 180, 181; note 574, page 369. ‘‘ Berea,” 
in Bohn’s translation, quoted on page 181, is a mistake for ‘‘ Berytus.”’ 

Gregory the Illuminator, 69. 

Gregory of Nazianzus, 190, 260. 

Gregory, 215. 

Gregory, 71. 

Gregory 7., Pope; on Baptism, 90, note. 

Gregory XTI., Pope, 94, 95. 

Gregory the Wonder-Worker’s Creed; see under ‘‘ Creed of Gregory the Wonder- 
Worker.” 

Grynaeus, Simon, 151. 

Gualterus, that is Walther, Rudolph, 151. 

Guido de Bres, 136. 

Hagenbach, 110. 

Hahn, 183. 

Hair, long not to be worn by monks, 39; forbidden by the New Testament, and 


450 Index I.—General Index. 


by Canons XXI. and XLII. of the Trullan Synod, 39; first found among 
the Massalians, 39; condemned by Epiphanius and by Augustine, 39. 

Hefele, Bishop, 250-268, 287, 327, 360. 

fYelena, the mother of Constantine, 385-388; text and notes. 

Helladius, an Arian, 174, 188. 

ffellanicus, Bishop of Tripoli, 180, 181. 

fHelvetic Confession, 146, 149, 160. 

Hemiphorium, 166, text and note. 

Henry IV. of France, 135. 

Henry, Prince of Conde, 135. 

Hensley, 287. 

Herbert, George, 111. 

Herzog, 79; 81, note. 

fleraclius, 214. 

Hermogenes, 396-400; text and notes. 

Heurtley, 28, 30, 31, 331; 334, note 488; 335. 

Hieracas, 185, 190, 191. 

Hilary, 134, 160, 190. 

Hilary of Poitiers, 214, 324; his Latin version of the Nicene Creed, 319-324. 

Hilkiah, 28. 

fippolytos, 110, 123; Preface iv. 

Holland Confession, 136. 

Holy Ghost, see under “ Arius” and “Arianism.” 

Homilies of the English Church, ΤΟΙ, 102. 

Honorius, Pope, 88; Archbishop Kenrick on, 88; his great error on that matter, 
89; condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, 159-263. 

Hook, Dr.; 87, note. 

flooper, Bishop, 111, 115. 

Hosius of Cordova, 214, 257, 258, 259, 262; was he among the Presidents of 
Nicaea ὃ 261-267; was hea legate of Rome? 266, 267, 276, 279, 280, 273; 
note 427; 328; 377, note 398; 383 text, and note 604; set forth the faith at 
Nicaea, 376-383; induces Constantine to assemble the First Ecumenical 
Council, 382; probably knew Greek as well as Latin, 382, 383; was an in- 
termediary between Constantine and the Greek-speaking Bishops of the 
Council, 382, 383; connection with Constantine’s conversion, 385-388. 

HYosius, Cardinal, 139. 

Hughes, Archbishop, authorizes the Raccolta, 224, 225 

Humanity of Christ as to worshipping it, the Universal Church on, 103, 104; 
Athanasius on, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240; St. Epiphanius on, 240-244; see 
“Christ,” and ‘‘Creature-Service,” 248, ‘Relative Worship” and 
“ Bowing.” 

Hussites, 138. 

Hymenaeus, excommunicated by Paul, τοῦ. 

Hypostases, Three; what sort of confessed by Arius, 186, text and note; 214. 

Iconostasis, 40; the Armenians seem not to use, 69; fault of the Greeks in that 
matter, 69. 


Index I.—General Index. 451 


Idolatry, 92; the cause of dividing the Church, 94; Homily Against of the Church 
of England, 94. See Zmage Worship, and 115; the Arian worship of Christ 
as a creature compared by St. Epiphanius to the idolatry of worshipping 
Nebuchadnezzar’s image, 241, 242; branded by Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari 

s ‘‘Arian idolatry,’’ 247, 248; our duty towards all idolaters, 248, 249. See 
also under ‘“‘ Jmage Worship;’’ Rome’s idolatry soul-damning, Preface, 
page vi. 

Idols, sacrifices to forbidden, 29. 

Lonatius, 71. 

Images, should not be used in Churches, 70, 108, 113, 114; the primitive ee 
tians used none, 114; Augustine of Hippo on, 114. 

Image worship, 4, 6, 12, 24, 38, 39, 40, 49, 56, 88, 92, 104, 107, 108, 109, 114, 115. 
See ‘‘Jdolatry,”” and ‘‘ Christ,” and ‘‘Bowing,’’ how we are bound to deal 
with all Image-Worshippers, 248, 249; Image-Worship forbidden, by nec- 
essary implication, by the Six Ecumenical Councils, note 525, page 350, 
and Preface vi., and by Scripture, 402; and by primitive testimony, Preface 
vi.; curses of God for, 350, note 525; see under ‘‘ /dolatry,”’ also. 

Immersion, 123; see Baptism. 

Incarnation, 50. 

Incensing, an act of worship, Io4. 

Incestuous person, the, in the Church of Corinth, τοῦ. 

Incorporeal, Arius held the Father to be, 187; remarks on, 188-200. See ‘‘Vo- 
bodyttes.”’ 

Incorporealists, two classes of, 199, 200. See also Preface, page iii. 

Indulgences, Roman doétrine of, 36. 

Infallibility, Papal, 88. 

Infant Baptism, 130. 

Infants, Chrisming and Eucharistizing of, 36, gt, 124. 

Innocent, I., Pope, held that no infant can be saved without the Eucharist. 

Invocation of Saiuts, 4, 6; invocation an act of religious worship, 104. See 
““ Prayer,’’ and “ Mary,’ St. Athanasius teaches that the sufferings of 
Christ’s humanity are Economically attributed to His Divinity lest we 
should seem to invoke a creature, 237, 238; see ‘‘ Prayer.” 

Luvocation of Saints condemned by Presbyterians, and, in effect, by Anathema 
VIII. of St. Cyril of Alexandria and Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumen- 
ical Council, 104; see “‘Creature-Service,”’ and ‘‘ Economic Appropria- 
tion;”’ Arianism impliedly favored its introduction, 214-217. 

Invocation, see ‘‘ Prayer,” and ‘‘ Invocation of Saints.’ 

LIvenicon, Preface ii. 

Lsraelitish Church, 12, 40. 

Issue, the truth that the Logos isyan Issue out of the Father was denied by 
Arius, 187; affirmed by early writers, 188, 189, 190. See “Logos,” ‘‘ Art- 
anism,” “ Arians,” “Arius,” and “Eusebius of Nicomedia.”’ 

Jacob Baradaeus, 71, 72, 79. 

Jacob of Edessa, 79. 

Jacob of Sarug, 79. 


452 Index I.—General Index. 


Jacobites, their Mariolatry, 53; their name, 72; how they regard the Second 
Synod of Ephesus, 80, 81; see ‘Syrian Monophysites.”’ 

Jacobus, M. W., the Peso cea his reply to Pius IX., 4, 6. 

JSamakirk, the penis Prayer Book, 63, 64. 

James, 71. 

James, an Apostle, 71. 

Jeanne @ Albret, 135, text and note. 

Jeremiah, 40, 111. 

Jerome of Stridon, 197, 214, 215. 

Jews, Anti-Christian, 136, and Preface, page vi. 

John the Apostle, 91. 

John of Antioch, 47, 79. 

John the Baptist, 111. 

John Chrysostom. See ‘‘ Chrysostom.” 

John of Damascus, 60. 

John George I., elector, 142. 

John Sigismund, the Elector, 141. 

John XXTIITI,, Pope, 95. 

Josiah, King, 12. 

Joslyn, Titus, a Latin Church presbyter, 85, 86, 87. 

Jovian, the Emperor, 213. 

Julian, cardinal, 28, 29, 30, 31. 

Julius, (Pope?), 71. 

Julius, an Arian, 174, 188. 

Justin the Martyr, 84, 110, 123, 191; Preface i., note; and 111. 

Justin, the Emperor, 14. 

Justinian, the Emperor, 14. 

Kaye, Bishop; note 525, page 349. 

Keble, John; his idolatry on the Eucharist, 105; his idolatrizing, 106, 111; his end 
111. See Newman, Pusey, E. B., Neale, and Oxford Movement. 

Kenrick, Archbishop, 88, 89. 

Keys, power of; taught by Reformed, 143. 

Kilis, 68. 

Kissing tmages, idolatry of, 109. 

Kneeling, an act of worship, 104. 

Kollner, 32, note; 87, 128. 

Laétantius, 110; 189, twice. 

Laics, how those who had fallen into idolatry and denial of Christ in times of 
persecution, without being forced and without loss of goods were to un- 
dergo public confession, and penance, and to be received to the Eucharist 
again, 415. 

Lanfranc, the Italian-Norman, takes the place of the Saxon Stigand, 124. 

Language of the people; should be used in worship, 91. 

Laodicea, Canon XXXV. of, 104. 

Latimer, Bishop, 111, 115. 

Latin Church, the, Preface i.; on the Six Councils, 23; its earliest rites to be 


Index I.—General Index. 453 


® 


preserved, 70; does not receive the Apostolical Constitutions, so called, 77; 
on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, 82; Latin Church, on the VI. Synods, 
2, 85-95; what Synods and what Creeds it receives, 85-95; how its Latin 
translation of the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council differs from 
the Greek original, 85; it is their only Mass Creed, 85; its present duty, 
go-95; a new and sound episcopate needed by Rome and the sees con- 
trolled by it; how it should be given, 92-95. See ‘‘ Latins.” 

Latins, persecuted by Arians, 215. 

Laud, Archbishop, 105. 

Lay control of church property; forbidden, 95. 

Leander of Seville, go, note. 

Leavened bread, 36, 124, 125. See under ‘‘ Unleavened Bread,” “‘ Eucharist”? 
and ‘“‘Wafers.’ See also under ἄρτος, in the Greek Index. 

Leipzig Colloguy, 141, 142. 

Lent, every Provincial Council to meet before it, every year, 411; Lent was for- 
merly not so long as now, 411, note 636. 

Leo I., Pope, 47, 52, 55, 56, 76, 78, 79, 90, 92. 

Leo XIII., Pope, condemned as a heretic by Greeks and Anglicans; his baptism 
and orders denied by the Greeks; holds to heresies condemned by the Six 
Ecumenical Councils; an orthodox man should be put in his place, 41, 92, 
263, 264. 

Leontius, an Arian, 177. 

Leontius of Caesarea, 397. 

Le Quien, on Caesarea, 399. 

Liberalism, False and Anti-Christian, 95. 

Liberius, Pope, 214. 

Libya, 411. 

Licinius, 169, 175, 257- 

Light, a, from a light, Hieracas on, 190. 

Littledale, 95, note. 

Local Councils, received by Chalcedon, 78, 79; local Councils of the West judged 
Bishops of Rome, 94. 

Local Customs, 9, 40; wisest and best rule on, 70, 92. 

Logos, the; Arius tries to pervert the meaning of the texts of Holy Writ which 
teach that He has aétually come out of the Father’s substance, 187; and 
denies that doctrine, 190; so did Eusebius of Nicomedia, 365, 366, 367. 
See “ Arius’? and ‘‘ Lusebius of Nicomedia.’? Orthodox men held that 

~ He is a Consubstantial Part of God, and an Issue from the Father, 187, 
188, 189, 190, 200; and born out of His mouth, 189, 190; note 546, page 
364; note 558, and page 300; and most of the Ante-Nicene Writers held that 
He was born out of the Father not eternally, but just before the worlds were 
made, IgI, 192, 193; 349, note 524; 364, note 546; Preface ii.; the Endiathetic 
Logos, 191; Preface ii.; denied by the Arians, 204, note 239; 207; note 546, 
page 364; page 365; the Prophoric Logos, 191; Preface ii.; denied by the 
Arians, 204, note 239; 207, and 163-256; in what sense Arius deemed him 
a Son, 220, text, and note 281; the Logos is God because He was born out 


454 Index I.—General Index. 


of the Father, 222, 223, 224, 226; the do¢trine of the birth of the Logos 
misrepresented by Eusebius of Nicomedia, page 363, note 543; page 364, 
note 546; the Arian heresy on the Logos set forth in his Epistle, pages 361- 
369, text and notes; his cavils as to ἐκ, etc., note 571. See ‘‘ Husebius of 
Nicomedia,’’ and ‘‘ Eusebius of Caesarea,’ the Orthodox held that if the 
Logos be not God He is not to be worshipped, 365, note 553; page 368, 
note 571; page 373, note 591; the Arians denied that doé¢trine, ibid.; in 
what sense the Orthodox held that the Logos was created up into a Son 
by his birth out of the Father, note 558, page 366; the Logos has come 
out of the Father’s substance, and as consubstantial and coeternal with 
him is to be worshipped as God, not as a creature, page 365, notes 553, 
554, 555, 557, 558; and is a Part of God, note 556, as Tertullian held, ibid.; 
he held that the Logos was eternally God, but not a Son till His birth out 
of the Father, page 366, note 558; is ‘‘ Character of the Father’s Substance.” 
See under Heb. I: 3, in the Index to Scripture in this work; and under 
Λόγος in the Greek Index. See ‘‘.Son of God.”’ 

Long Brothers, the, 194. 

Longinus, 399. 

Loosing. See ‘ Binding.” 

Lora’s Supper, 6. See ‘‘ Hucharist.”’ 

Lucian the Martyr, 177; ‘‘fellow-Lucianist’’ used by Arius to Eusebius of Nico- 
media, 180, text and note; 181; and 338; Lucian’s reputed Creed, 337, 338. 

Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari, 214; persecuted for his Orthodoxy, 214; brands 
Arianism as destructive of God’s religion, and as ‘‘ Arian Ldolatry,’’ 247, 
248; but was too severe against penitent Arians, 248, 249; our true course 
regarding idolatrizers, 248, 249; his Latin Version of the Nicene Creed, 
319-324. 

Lucius, 188. 

Ludolf, 50, text and note; 51, 52, text and notes. 

Luther, on the Third Synod and on Cyril of Alexandria, 3. 

Lutherans, on the VI. Synods, 2, 23, 128-131; works giving their views on, 128, 
139; low state of some in Europe, Preface 1]. 

Macarius, an Arian, 174. 

Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, 180, 181. 

Macarius of Vinnitga; a Russian Church Bishop, 22, 25; 26, text and notes; 33, 
text and note; 34, text and notes, 82. 

Macedontus, 55, 89. 

Macedonianism, 8; 58, note. 

Macrostich, the, 338. 

Mahan, Dr. Milo, 122 

Maldonat, 91. 

Man-Worship, 58; condemned by the Third Council, 89, 90. See also under 
“Arius,” and ‘‘ Creature-Service,” and “ Relative-Worship,” and 
‘‘ Bowing.”’ 

Manes, 136. 

Manichaeism. See ‘‘ Manichaeus,’’ and 191. 


Index I.—General Index. : 455 


Manichaeus, 185; 190, twice; 191, 226. 

Manoah, forbidden to sacrifice to any but God, 234. 

Manst, 58. 

Mar Abd Yeshua, 49. 

Mar Awa, 49. 

Mar Shimoon, 45. 

Marcellus of Ancyra, 331-334, and note 332. 

Marcion, 136, 226. 

Marctonites, 142. 

Margrave’s Confesston, 140, 141. 

Mariolatry, of the Jacobites, 53. See under “ J/ary.”” 

Mark of Ephesus, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. 

Maronea, 200, note 228. 

Maronite, 200, note 228. 

Maronttes, 42. 

Marriage of Clergy, 37, 111-118, 126; married clergy, 112. 

Marriage, to be guarded, 126, 127. 

Martin V., Pope, 95. 

Martyrs, not to be worshipped, 104. 

Mary the Virgin, 4, 14, 46; worshipped py the Greeks, the Jacobite Syrians, and 
the Latins. See under those terms, and ‘‘ Wariolatry,’’ the Monophysite 
heretic Peter the Fuller, in the fifth century, introduces the evil custom 
of naming, that is perhaps of invoking her in every prayer, 316, and 317, 
note 472. See ‘‘ Prayer,” and ‘‘ Invocation of Saints.” 

Mary, the Bloody, 105, 115. 

Mass, the Roman, 4, 6. 

Maxentius, 169. 

Maximian, Patriarch of Constantinople, 58 

Maximin, Emperor, 169. 

Megherditch, 61. 

Melancthon, 139. 

Meletius, 165, 171, 282, 283. See ‘‘ Metropolitans.”” 

Melito, Bishop of Sardis, on Incorporealism, 195. 

Menas, an Arian, 174, 188. 

Mennas, 80. 


Metrans, 71. - 
Methodius, St., 14; an oration falsely attributed to him, 14; creature-worship in 


it, 14; abused by the’ Origenist Socrates, note 524. 

Metropolitans, rights of over their suffragan Bishops vindicated by the Council 
of Nicaea against Meletius, 282, 283; in their Synodal Epistle, 297, 298, 
300, 301; and in their Canons, 408-413; right of the Metropolitan of Cae- 
sarea over his suffragan, the Bishop of Jerusalem, when Caesarea was the 
Metropolis, 413; whether originally there was more than one Metropolitan 
in the jurisdi@tion of Alexandria, more than one in that of Antioch, more 
than one in that of Carthage, more than one in that of Rome, etc., 283- 
286. 


456 Index I.—General Index. 


Middle Ages, ignorance and idolatry in, 12. Η 

Milan, Council of, A. Ὁ. 355; 214. 

Milevis, Synod of, 144. 

Minucius Felix, 91. 

Minutes of the VI. Councils, 11. 

Mission, meaning of, 22. 

Mission, temporal, 33. 

Mohammed, derived his error that the Word and the Spirit are creatures from 
the Arians, and the worship of a man from the Nestorians, 255; he was 
God’s scourge on Christians for their sins, 325. 

Mohammedans, 136. 

Monads, Orthodox sense, 175; Arian sense, 204. 

Monks and Nuns, 111, 112; Greek monks defend their ence noble Anglican 
ones, 111-118; evil ones, 112, 113; duty of Anglican Monee and Nuns; not 
to beara man’s name but God’s, 116; kinds of work for, 116; 111-118; 
ancient Monks opposed creature-serving Arianism, I15. 

Monophysites, 1, Preface; 8, 23, 42, 49, 50, and after; their many disputes, 53; are 
creature-servers, 53; are the Armenians Monophysites? 57, 58, 61, 65, 67; 
Monophysite Schwenkfeldians, 130. See ‘Syrian Monophysites,”’ and 
“« Abyssinians,”’ and “ Armenians,” 

Monothelism, 9, 142. 

Montanists, 292. 

Montfaucon, 32. 

Moravians, 138, 139. 

Morse, on Hosius’ position at Nicaea, 280. 

Mother of God, 130. 

Moush, Armenian Bishop of, 61. 

Murdock’s Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, 14, 15, 95, note. 

Myconius, Oswald, 151. 

Names of God. See “‘ God.”’ 

Natalis Alexander, 326. 

Natures Two, 47, 154, 155. See under ‘‘ Wonophysites,’’ ‘“Armenians,”’ ‘‘Copts,”’ 
“Syrian Monophysttes.” 

Neale, 7. M., his history; his creature-worship, 42, 44, note; 53, 105, 106; his 
false notion for unleavened wafers, 124, 125; his tendency to drink, 44, 105; 
on an Armenian Creed, 67; on the source whence the Armenians derived 
the Apostles’ Creed and the Athanasian, 68. See “Oxford Movement,” 
“ Keble,” “Newman,” and “ Pusey, E. 8. — 

Neander, on the expression, ‘‘ Of the same substance,” etc., page 363, note 543. 

Nerses Schnorhali, 57, note; 58, note. 

Nestorians, i., Preface; 8, 23, 42; their dofrines, 42-50; what Creeds and Ecu- 
menical Councils they receive, do; on Ephesus, on the Filioque, their vir- 
tues and their faults, their present duty, 49, 50; are creature-servers; guilty 
of relative worship, 89, 193; Lutherans on, 130; Reformed on, 142, 144, 156. 

Nestorius, 49, 54, 55, 58, 74; his plea for the relative-worship of Christ’s humanity 
condemned by the Third Synod, 89, 107. 


Index I.—General Index. 457 


Nevin, 7. W., on Creeds and Confessions, 147. 

Newman, 7. H., 188, 189, 190; 200, note 228; 224; a paganizer, 106, III, 249; on 
Eternal Generation, 110; 184, note; 191; his translation of Athanasius 
faulty in places, 218, note, 271; 221, note 284; 338; he is wrongly praised 
by some, 249; some of his notes on Athanasius Against Arianism are Ro- 
manizing, page 349, note 525; with most of his co-workers of the Oxford 
Movement seemed not to know well the Six Synods, ibid., and hence like 
most of them did not deem Rome as idolatrous as she is, ibid.; died an 
idolater, ibid.; taught against the teaching of his own Church, where it 
brands Roman idolatry and that of the East as soul-damning, ibid. See 
‘Oxford Movement,” ‘‘ Keble,’’ and ‘‘ Pusey E. B.,” and ‘‘Neale.”’ 

Newton, R., Heber, 108. 

{Vicaea, the First Ecumenical Synod; works of this set on, Preface ii. to vi.; 15, 
II, 43, 13, 17, 18,.25, 28, 37; its Creed, 43, 44, 45, 77, 79, 102; on Eternal 
Birth, 110, 111; Authorities and References on Nicaea, 163, 164. See 
“‘Canons.’? The Synod itself, 256; 1, Events just before it, 256, 257, 258; 
2, Its date, 258; 3, In what building did it meet? 258, 259; 4, Number of 
Bishops who were present, 259; 5, Whence they came, 259; 260; 6, The 
Disputations at Nicaea before the Synod met, 260, 261; 7, Who presided ? 
261-267; 8, The Acts of the First Synod, 267, 268; 9, On what topics 
Nicaea decided, 268, 269; 10, Why should not the gathering of the Apos- 
tles at Jerusalem, which acquitted Peter, as told in Acts XI., be deemed 
the First Ecumenical Synod, and that in Acts XV., which vindicated the 
claim of Gentile Christians to be free from the Mosaic Law be deemed the 
Second, in which case Nicaea would be reckoned the Third ? 269; Answer, 
269; seventeen Bishops at Nicaea side with Arius, 260; Rome’s position 
there, 263; had no exclusive presidency there, 263; in an Ecumenica/ 
Council every Bishop has one vote and no more, 263; 287, note 4504; its 
decision on the Faith and on Easter, 265; Constantine entertains the 
Bishops, 266; its great decisions, those against the denial of Christ’s Di- 
vinity, and against its logical sequences of creature-worship and polythe- 
ism, 269; on what day the Creed was adopted, 264, 265; its Synodal Epistle, 
268; two documents from St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, before it, 
270, 271; An Oration of the Emperor Constantine to the Council of Nicaea 
on Peace, 271; An Oration of St. Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, in the 
Council of Nicaea, to the Emperor Constantine, 271-279; its Synodal 
Epistle; where found, 281; its contents, 281; A. It condemns Arius and 
his Heresies; B. it condemns the Meletian Schism and decrees how Meletius 
and his partisans are to be received, 282; who Meletius was, 282; what les- 
son the Council’s action on him teaches us, 283-286; C. It settles the 
date of the Paschal Festival; differences on that matter before, 286-288; 
gives authority to the Bishop of Alexandria to determine the Pask Lord’s 
Day; differences afterwards among those who held to Nicaea, as to what 
Lord’s Day should be kept as Pask. See ‘‘ Pask,’? final agreement of all 
and disappearance of Fourteenth Day Sets; folly of some modern differ- 
ences as to Pask, 288-293; the differences between the British Churches 


458 


Index I—General Index. 


and the Roman Missionary Augustine, what? 291; the Britons not Quar- 
todecimans, 291; D. the Council vindicates and commends to the Alex- 
andrians their Bishop, the Orthodox Alexander, 293; Socrates’ Greek of 
the Synodal Epistle, 294-296; English translation of it, 295-299; transla- 
lation of Theodoret’s Greek of it into English, 299-303; passed by a com- 
mon vote of the Synod, 303; 1, The Creed of Nicaea, 304-404; Greek and 
English of it, 305-308; is one of the two only Ecumenical Creeds, 305; 
sometimes called that of the, 318; differences between Eusebius’ text of 
it and St. Athanasius’, 308; form of it read in the Third Ecumenical Synod, 
209; that read in Act II. of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod and in Act V., 
and that in its Definition, 310; 2, Variations in the Greek text of the Nicene 
Creed, and in the Latin translations of it, 310; is found in an Epistle of 
St. Cyril of Alexandria read in the Third Synod, and in the Definition of 
the Sixth Synod, 313, 314, 315; was the baptismal Creed of the East at 
least as late as A. D. 451, 515; at first said only once a year, 316, note; the 
heretic Timothy the Fuller caused it to be said in every church gathering, 
315, note 472; the Creed of the Second Synod used instead of it at the 
Eucharist in A. D. 589, in the East and in Spain, 316; and in baptism at 
Rome in the ninth century; the Monophysites seem to have preferred the 
Nicene Creed to the Constantinopolitan, 317, note 472; how the existence 
of the Constantinopolitan Creed in the Roman Baptismal Office may be 
explained, 317, note 474; variations in the Latin translations of the Greek 
of the Nicene Creed, 319-324; they do not affect dogma, 324; 3, Gelasius, 
Bishop of Cyzicus; unreliability of his work on the Council of Nicaea, 
324-329; he was too long after the Synod to be an authority, 324, 325; be- 
sides his language is creature-serving; instances in proof, 325; was ignor- 
ant of the Arian character of Eusebius of Caesarea, 325, 328, text and 
note; verdict of learned men against him, 326; instances of Gelasius’ er- 
roneous statements 326, 327; his Three Books on the Council, 327, 328; one 
of them tampered with, 327; his testimony on Hosius not reliable, 326, 
328; witnesses against the creature-worship of Arius, 329; and for the 
Scripturalness of the Nicene Creed, 328; 4, Did any Declarative Creed 
precede the Nicene ? 329, 330; answer, 329, 330; 5, Does any author before 
Nicaea give any Declarative Creed ? 330-334; answer 330-334; each Church 
had its own local Creed, 330; on what it was based, 330; superseded by the 
Nicene generally, 331; Creed of Jerusalem, 331, 332; that of Rome, 331, 
332; statement of Marcellus of Ancyra, 332, 333; Rufinus’ reference to 
the so-called Apostles’, 332; Ambrose’s on it, 333; the Roman Creed not 
mentioned by the Nicene Fathers, 333; 6, Is the Nicene Creed an ampli- 
fication of that commonly termed the Apostles? 334; No, 333, 334; the 
negative proven at length, 334-336; 350-376; 7, Examination of the claim 
of Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine that in his Profession of Faith offered 
at Nicaea, he furnished the First Ecumenical Council the basis of the 
Nicene Creed, and a consideration in this connection of the opinion of 
Valesius that Eusebius’ Profession is the same as an Arian document 
which, Theodoret testifies, the Fathers of Nicaea tore up, 336-376. See 


Index I.—General Index. 459 


“« Eusebius of Caesarea,” and “‘ Constantine the Great;” its Creed, 341, 
342; Athanasius’ account of how the Fathers at Nicaea negatived the 
Arian expressions, 357, 358, 359; 8, What facts have reached us as to who 
were most active at Nicaea for the expression ‘‘Of the same substance,” 
(ὁμοούσιον) and against Arian Creature-Service, 376-391; Hosius; Athana- 
sius on him, 376; his efforts for the Faith at Nicaea, 376, 377, 378; Ffoulkes 
on him, note 598, page 377; note 604, page 383; he was probably one of the 
Presidents of the Council, 378; his connection with the words substance 
(οὐσία), and subsistence (ὑπόστασις), at Alexandria before Nicaea met, 378, 
379, 380, 381, 382; Socrates’ account Origenistic, 379; both those Greek 
words in the Nicene Creed, 379; how the Orthodox differed at first as to 
the use of the expression, ‘“ Zhree Hypostases,’’ (τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις) 379, 
380, 381, 382; how they at last agreed, 380; the Arian sense of that expres- 
sion, 379, 380, 401; Philostorgius on that debate, 380; Hosius’ good work 
for the faith and the convening of the Council, 376-385. See ‘‘ Husta- 
thius”’ and ‘‘ Alexander of Alexandria,;’’? some of the countries from 
which the Bishops came, page 383, note 604; their merits, 390; the Creed 
of Nicaea enshrines the faith held to from the beginning, 390; 9, The 
most notable terms which are found in the Creed of the First Ecumenical 
Synod, but are not in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Profession of Faith; rea- 
sons for them, 391-394; Eusebius’ remarks on them, 391, 392; summary of 
their teaching, 392; cavils and perversions of Scripture language on the 
Divinity of Christ, and how the Council met them, 392, 393; their perver- 
sion of the Words ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, “out of God,’ in John viii., 42, lead the 
Fathers of the Council to put into their Creed the words, ‘‘ Out of the 
substance of the Father,” to confute their heresy of making -him a crea- 
ture and their consequent creature-worship, 393; words in the Nicene 
Creed which are not in Eusebius’ Profession, 393, 394; 10, The chief things 
in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Profession which are not in the Nicene Creed; 
why they were omitted by the Fathers of the Council, 394, 395, 396; 11, 
who wrote the Nicene Creed ? 396-400; 12, Its Scripturalness, 400-404; 13, 
On the inconsistent and hypocritical course of some of the Arian leaders, 
in signing and afterwards rejecting those terms of the Nicene Creed which 
teach the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father; and in pleading 
that they rejected them because they are not in Scripture, while they used 
terms which are not in Scripture to express their heresy, 400-404; the 
canons of Nicaea, 404-425; what Ecumenical Councils made canons? 404; 
importance of those canons, 404; result of violating them, 404, 405; the 
Greek text and English translation in this work; the Greek text and Eng- 
lish translation given, 406-425; their headings, ibid.; Nicaea called in its 
Canons, “ἐλ Holy and Great Synod,’’ 419, 421. 

Nicaea, A. D. 787; 56, 57, 58, 61, 88. See under Latins, Greeks, Anglicans, 
Armenians, Copts, Syrians, Nestorians, Lutherans, and Reformed, why 
it must be rejected, 89, 102, 159. 

Nicetas, 384, note. 

Nicetas, 68. 


460 Index I.—General Index. 


Nicetas Choniata, 389. 

Nicholas Bulgaris, 60. 

Nobodyites, two classes of, 199. See “ Zucorporeal’’ and ‘ Incorporealists.”’ 

Novatian, on Eternal Birth, 110; on the birth of the Logos out of the Father’s 
mouth, 189. 

Novatians, Ecumenical Canons on, 158; some of them were Quartodecimans, 


292. See “‘ Catharists,’’ another name for them. 
Nuns, 111. 


Odenheimer, Bishop, 122. 

“ Of the same substance,’’ cavils of Eusebius of Caesarea on, 340, 341. 

Opinions, local, 9. 

Orange, Second Council of, 144. 

Orders, grace of, 4, 6. 

Origen, on Eternal Birth, and the Anti-Body Theory, 18, etc.; his condemnation 
by the Fifth Synod, etc., 18, 42, 83, 110, 159, 193-200; on Eternal Birth, 
Preface, iii. 

Originator, God the Father the Origtnator of all things, 187, and notes 216, 217. 

Orthodox Confession of the Greek Church, 34, note; 35. 

Orthodox test-terms, page 344, note 519. See the Nicene Creed, pages 306, 307; 
and pages 391-396, and under proper terms in the Index to the Greek 
in this volume; Arian test-terms opposed to the Orthodox, 401, 402, 403. 

Orthodoxy, the Nestorians oppose, 45. 

Oxford Library of the Fathers, t4. See ‘‘ Newman.”’ 

Oxford Movement, the, 106; note 525, page 449; those of its leaders who were 
creature-servers should be anathematized, note 525. See ‘‘ Pusey, 5. B., 
Keble, and Newman, and Veale. 

Paine, Tom, 147. 

Falmer, W., of Worcester College, Oxford, page 349, note 525. 

Falmer, the Deacon’s Dissertations on the Greek Church, go, note. 

Paphnutius, 37. : 

Paris, Reformed Synod at, 135. 

Parish in Greek used for what we now call a diocese, 338, and note 498. 

FParsopa one, Nestorian statement, 47. 

Pask, Nicaea decides on it, for the Lord’s Day observance, 286, 299, 301, 302; 
gives authority to the Bishop of Alexandria to compute it, 288. See 
“‘Pask;’’? Pope Leo I. on, 288, 281; an alleged passage of St. Cyril of 
Alexandria on, 289; the receiving of the time of Easter by Metropolitan 
from Metropolitan not a sign of subjection, 290; after Nicaea different 
ways of reckoning lead to differences among those who held tothe Nicene 
rule, 290; when agreement was attained in the West, 291; references on 
that matter, 291; what se¢ts were Fourteenthdayites; how they differed 
among themselves; they disappear, 292; how the present differences be- 
tween the Latins and the Greeks on that matter may be cured, 292, 293; 
the Synodal Epistle of Nicaea; in Greek as in Socrates, 294-296; in Eng- 
lish, 295-299; in English from Theodoret, 299-303; passed by a Synodal 
Vote, 303. See “‘ Micaea.”’ 


Index I.—General Index. 461 


Patriarchs, should be created where necessary, 283-286. 

Patrophilus, the Arian, 402. 

Paul, the founder of the see of Caesarea, 400. 

Paul of Samosata, 136, 231. 

Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre; an Arian, 180, 181, 361; 362, note 541; note 574. 

Paulianists, must all be rebaptized on coming to the Universal Church, 425; 
rule on the reception and ordination of their clergy, 425; their Deacon- 
esses, 425. 

Pelagians, 130, 144. 

Pelagius, Pope, 90, 92. 

Pelargus, 141. 

Penance, public; that is public Repentance, and public Confession for image- 
worship, creature-invocation, and denial of Christ; rules for it as to its 
manner and duration, 415, 417, 419, 421; the classes called Hearers, and 
Prostrators and Co-standers referred to, 417; Hearers referred to, 419; 
every Bishop might shorten public penance in his own jurisdiction, 417. 

Pentapolis, 411. 

Perceval, note 525, page 349. 

Persians, the, 58. 

Persons Two, Nestorian error, 47. 

Peter the Apostle, 37, 92, 263, 400. 

Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, 165, 175. 

Peter the Fuller, his addition to the Trisagion, 60; a saint among the Syrian 
Monophysites, 79. 

Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, 26. 

Philogonius, Bishop of Antioch, 180, 181. 

Philostorgius, 163, 165, 166. 

Philoxenus, 71. 

Phoebadius, 179, note 191; 189, thrice. 

Photinians, 142. 

Photius, 42, 163, 165, 166, 267. 

Piftures. See Image-Worship, and 104, 107, 108, 114; 350, note 525. 

Pisa, Council of, 94. 

Pistus, an Arian, 188; remarks on, 188. 

Pius IV., his Creed. See ‘‘ Creed of Pope Pius IV.” 

Pius VIT., approves the ‘‘ Raccolta,”’ 224, 225. 

Pius IX., 4; Presbyterian reply to, 4; his dogma of Infallibility, 88; his approval 
of the foul Raccolta, 224, 225. 

Plato of Moscow, 22, 24, 27; 35, text and note. 

Poissy, Colloquy of, 135. 

Popes of Alexandria, 166, 167; 178, text and note; 183; 184, text and note, 

Popes of Rome, 5, 10, 27, 28, 29, 31. See “ Vigilius,” ‘‘Honorius,” and “Leo 
DILL,» 

Praxeas, 136. 

Prayer for the Dead, 127. 


462 Index I.—General Index. 


Prayer to Creatures, St. Athanasius proves that the Son is God because He is 
prayed to in Scripture, 223; he states that whatever the Father gives, he 
gives through the Son, 223; and that the Angel invoked by Jacob was God 
the Word, because he would not have prayed to a creature, 223; and that 
no one would invoke a creature with God, 223; that condemns the late 
Romish custom of joining the names of Joseph and Mary with Jesus, 223, 
224, and 225; Scripture and the VI. Ecumenical Councils against giving 
invocation or any other act of religious service to any creature, animate 
or inanimate, or to anything but God, 225; 349, note 525; 402, and Preface, 
page vi.; primitive testimony also condemns it, Preface, page vi. See 
“Economic Appropriation,”’ 237-240; ‘Invocation of Saints” and ‘‘Mary,”’ 
and ‘‘ Mariolatry.”’ 

Presbyterians on the VI, Synods, 2, 5. See “Reformed” and ‘‘ Councils;” 
causes of their fall in Poland and Lithuania, 161, 162. 

Presbyters, crown of, 125; the ordination of unexamined, immoral, or unbelieving 
persons to the presbyterate made null and void, 415; the ordination of 
those who had fallen into idolatry or denial of Christ in persecution for- 
bidden, and all such deposed if ordained, 415; Catharist presbyters com- 
ing to the Church, case of, 413. 

Priesthood of believers, 3, 6. 

Primacy of Rome, 36, 93, 261, 262-267. See ‘‘ Rome.” 

Primianus, 3099. 

Primus inter pares, 262. 

Principles two, condemn all errors, Preface, page VI. 

Private judgment, 3. 

Procession, meaning of, 22, 33. 

Procession, the Double, 31, 33, 36, 80-83. 

Proclus, 58. 

Prosper, on the Arians, 215. 

Prostration, an act of worship, 104. 

Protestants, agitations among, Preface, i.; mournful state of things among Amer- 
ican Protestants, Preface, i., ii; 130 sets of in United States, Preface ii. 

Protestant Episcopal. See ‘Anglican Communion.” 

Province; a Bishop is to be appointed by all the Bishops of the Province, 409; 
exception, 409; power of the Metropolitan in the matter, 409, 411, 413; its 
Synod to meet twice a year, 409; for what purposes, 409; when, 409; the 
rights of every province and of its Metropolitan within it guarded and 
guaranteed by Nicaea, 411, 413. 

Publication Fund, 18. 

Purgatory, 4, 6, 36; compare ‘‘ Prayer for the dead.” 

Puritans. See ‘‘ Catharists’’ and ‘‘ Novatians.”’ 

Purists. See “ Catharists’’ and ‘‘ Novatians.” 

Pusey, E. B., his paganism, 105, 106, 108, 111. See ‘“Oxford Movement,” 
“ Pusey, E. B.,” “Keble,” and “ Newman,” and “ Neale.” 

Pusey, P. E., τι, note; 227, note 300. 

Quartodecimans, and Quartodecimanism, 286; difference between Polycarp of 


Index I.—General Index. . 468 


Smyrna and Anicetus of Rome on that point, 286, 287; all the Orthodox 
Quartodecimans obeyed the decision of Nicaea on that matter, 287; author- 
ities on the early disputes on it, 287. 

Quotations, the ancients sometimes quoted the sense rather than the exact 
words, 361. 

Raccolta, the, 224. 

Real Presence, idolatrous worship of an alleged, 114; St. Cyril of Alexandria 
against that error, 114. See ‘‘ Eucharist,” and “ Relative Worship,’ and 
“ Creature-Service,”’ and “ Wafers,’’ and ‘‘ Leavened Bread.”’ 

Reformation, the, 83. 

Reformed, the; on Creeds and the Six Ecumenical Synods, 131-163; 139, 150; 
their present degeneracy, 146; causes of their fallin Poland and Lithu- 
ania, 161, 162; low state on faith of some, Preface ii. See “Presbyterians.” 

Relative Worship of the Israelites in their idolatry, 109; of so-called Christians, 
114; of Arians, 209, 210; note 525, page 349; relative worship of things not 
God; the Israelites guilty of that sin are said to have forsaken God, notes 
302, 303, On pages 227 and 228; relative worship, 37, 41; condemned by the 
Third Ecumenical Council, 89, 90; and by the Fifth, 90; 349, note 525; 
see ‘‘ Creature-Service,;’’ fault of the leaders of the Oxford movement on, 
349, note 525; Pusey’s, 105; 349, note 525. See also “ble” and 
“ Bingham.”’ - 

Relic Worship, forbidden, 104, twice; 115; note 525, page 350; relic worship 
forbidden by the VI. Councils, note 525, page 350; and by Holy Writ 402. 

Renaudot, 80, note; 81, note. 

Reserve, do&trine of, 6. 

Rhodes, Bishop of, 29. 

Ridley, Bishop, Iii, 115. 

Rochelle, Synod at, 135. 

Roediger, 81. 

Roman Supremacy, 31, 36. See ‘‘ Rome’’ below. 

Rome, Church of, 8, 88. See “‘Latin Church’’ and ‘Latins,’ 91, 160; had no 
supremacy, but only a primacy at Nicaea, 263. See ‘‘ Supremacy’ above. 
The Bishop of Rome subject to an Ecumenical Synod, 263; Pope Vigilius 
and Honorius, both judged and condemned by Ecumenical Councils, 263; 
Leo XIII. not deemed by the Greeks a valid successor of Peter, 263: both 
Greeks and Anglicans condemn him as a heretic, 263; what should be 
done, 263. See “Seventh Ecumenical Council;’’ who were representa- 
tives of Rome at Nicaea? 279, 280; no Bishop of Rome can usurp to him- 
self alone an autocracy over all other Bishops, nor usurp to himself alone 
the powers given by Christ to all the Apostles, page 287, note 45014; Rome 
shuns Scripture words and sense in stating her idolatry, and creature in- 
vocation, 402. 

Rome, Bishop of; his rights in his own province in Italy, 411; her attempt to 
obtain Appellate Jurisdiction in Latin Africa in the fifth century, and re- 
sistance of Carthage and the Africans thereto, Preface ii. 


Rood Screen, 71. 


464 Index I.—General Index. 


Roum Kalé, Council of, A. D. 1179; 57. 

Rufinus, 146, 326; his Latin Version of the Nicene Creed, 319-324. 

Russian Church. See ‘‘ Greek Church,” and 35. 

Sabellius, and his heresy; 136, 175, 185, 190, 191. 

Sacrament, no definition of the Universal Church as to what a sacrament is, nor 
as to how many there are; the Greeks use not that Latin word, 127, 128. 

Sacrifices to idols; forbidden in Acts XV.; page 29. 

Sacrifice, an act of religious worship and prerogative to God, 234. 

Sacrifice of the Mass, 4,6. See εἰ Rucharist,” and ‘ Adoration of the Host,” 
“‘ Teavened Bread,” and “Wafers.” 

Sahag, 58, note. 

Saints, invocation of. See ““ Zxvocation of Saints.”’ 

Samosatenes, 130, 136; 231, text and note. See “Paul of Samosata.”’ 

Sancroft, Archbishop, 111. 

Saravia, 136, text and note. 

Sarmatas, 170, 171, 174, 188. 

Schaff, P., 25; 32, text and note; 33, 87, 128. 

Scotch Confession, the, 151-154. 

Scriptures. See ‘‘ Bible.” 

Second Ecumenical Synod. See under “7. Constantinople.’ 

Secret Societies, 121. 

Seleucia, Council of, 215. 

Secundus, Bishop of Pentapolis, 173, 188, 282. 

Semi-Arian. See “ Basil of Ancyra.”’ 

Sendomir, Agreement of, 139. 

Seventh Ecumenical Council, a, needed, 90-95; will be a glorious gathering, 260. 

Severus, the heresiarch, 71, 79, 94. 

Sguropulus. See ‘ Syropulus.” 

Sheldon, Archbishop, 111. 

Shimoon, Mar, 45. 

Simeon the Stylite, 72. 

Six Bishops, the, sent by James II. to the Tower, all monks, 111. 

Six Ecumenical Synods, the. See under “Greeks,” ‘‘ Latins,” “ Anglicans,” 
“ Lutherans,” ‘ Reformed,’ and ‘‘ Counctls,;’? in the Latin Communion, 
88; they could not err on facts, 88, 89. 

Sixth Ecumenical Synod, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 104, 110; 144, 159. 

Smith, Thos., 24, 32, 33- 

Smith and Wace’s Diétionary, 85. 

Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary, 85, 87. 

Smyrna, 69. 

Sobeiski and his Poles saved Vienna in 1683, 260. 

Socinians, 139. 

Socrates, the Church Historian, 37, 164, 165, 174, 326. See ‘‘ Bohn’s Socrates,” 
for Origen and the view that God has no body, 193-200, an Origenist in 
part at least, 194-200; is supposed to have omitted something of the Arian, 
Eusebius of Caesarea, to save his Orthodoxy, page 346, note 524; abused 


Index I.—General Index. 465 


ὌΝ στ πεν 9----------------ς-ς-ςςςςςςςς-ςςςςςς---ς--ς------ 


St. Eustathius to favor the Arian Eusebius of Caesarea, ibid.; and so he 
abuses St. Methodius, St. Eustathius, and St. Theophilus, because they 
opposed the errors of his favorite, Origen, who was afterwards anathema- 
tized by the Fifth Synod, ibid.; may have omitted a part of the Synodal 
Epistle of Nicaea because it condemus Novatianism, ibid.; is deemed a 
Novatian, ibid.; may be anathematized by the Fifth Synod, ibid.; on 
Hosius, on οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, 378-383. 

Son of God, the. See ‘‘ Logos,” we receive all our bleesings through him, 223. 

Sosates. See ‘‘ Sotades.”’ 

Sotades, 200, note 228, and page 202, note 229. 

Soulish Sin, what, note 634, page 409. 

Southgate, Bishop, 71, 72; on the Monophysitism of the Syrians, 73-80; 81 text 
and note; 82. 

Sozomen, the Church historian, 164, 165, 214, 215. See ‘« Bohn's,’’? and 326; an 
Origenist in part, 194-200; his error as to Eustathius, 272, 273. 

Standing, when we must stand in prayer, 425. 

Stanley, Dean, 108; his impiety, 108; his faults, 163. 

Stigand, 124. 

Strangled things, 29. 

Subsistence (ὑπόστασις). See under ‘ Nicaea,” and ὙὝπόστασις in the Greek Index, 
and 401, 402, 403. 

Substance (οὐσία). See under “ Nicaea,” and Οὐσία in the Greek Index; and 
401, 402, 403. 

Sufferings, the, of Christ. See ‘Economic Appropriation.” 

Suicer, on Creature-Worship, 232, 233. 

Supererogation, works of. See ‘‘ Works.” 

Swainson, 85, 87. 

Swedish Church, 130. 

Sylvester, Pope, 326; 383, note 604. 

Synisact women. See ‘‘ Co-in-led,’’ 408, 409. 

Synod at Alexandria, 171. 

Synod of the Apostles, 28, 29, 30. 

Syrian Monophysites, that is Jacobites; authorities on, 71; what Councils they 
receive, and what Creeds they use, 71-85; their present doctrinal position, 
71-85; Syrian Monophysite Patriarch, So, 82, 83. See “" Jacobites.” 

Syrian Orthodox Bishops; persecuted by Arians, 214. 

Syrian Romanists, 75. 

Syrianus, Duke of Egypt, 214. 

Syrians, not Monophysites; their fault before Nestorius, 107. 

Syropulus, 27, 29. 

Table, the Holy; wrongly abolished, 106, 115; not worshippable, 115; its proper 
position, 125. 

Tall Brothers, the, 194. 

Tatian, 110. 

Ten Commandments, 137. 

Tertullian on Baptism, 15, 123; on clerical digamy, 99; on Eternal Birth, 110, 


466 Index I.—General Index. 


ΤΟΙ; on the birth of the Logos out of the Father’s mouth, 189; on ‘‘ Zssue,” 
190; held that God has a body, 195, 196, 200. 

Tessavacost. See ‘‘ Lent.” 

Tetrapolitan Confession, the, 154. 

Teutonic race; saved Christendom in Century VIII., 260. 

Thalia of Arius, poetry, 177, 200-205; 222; remarks on, 205-209; see ‘“Arius,”’ 
extracts from, 220. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 9, 45; 58, uote; 159; results of the sin of letting him die 
in the Church, 107; a Manuscript History of the Nicene Council said to be 
his, 267, 268; his notion as to who addressed Constantine, in the Nicene 
Council, 389, 390. 

Theodoret of Cyrus, the Nestorian, 44, note; his error on the Eucharist, 105; on 
Baptism, 123; his abuse of St. Cyril of Alexandria, 163; a Man-server, 169; 
but opposed to Arius, and to his worship of God the word as a creature. 
See ‘‘Lohn’s’’ Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History; on Eustathius, 273, 
274; Gelasius of Cyzicus compiles from him, 326. 

Theodosius, Bishop of Laodicea; an Arian, 180, 181. 

Theodosius I., the Great, Emperor, 155. 

Theodosius 77., Emperor, 58, note. 


Theodotus, Bishop of Laodicea, an Arian, (wrongly spelled 7heodosius in Bohn’s 
translation of Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History,) 181; note 574, page 369. 

Theonas, Bishop of Marmarica, an Arian, 188, 281, 282. 

Theophilus, St., of Antioch, against the do@rine of Eternal Birth, 84, 110; 180, 
note 197; 191. 

Theophilus, St., of Alexandria, his belief as to the question whether God has a 
body or not, and his differences on that matter from some of his monks, 
from Epiphanius, and from John Chrysostom, and his final agreement on 
it with St. Epiphanius, 193-200; gathers Synods to condemn Origen, 198; 
abused by the Origenist Socrates, note 524. 

- Theophylact, on Romans 11., 6; page 232. 

Theorian, on Latin customs and on those of the Greeks, 70. 

Theotimus, defends Origen, 198, 199. 

Theotokos, 47. 

Third Ecumenical Synod, 11, 13, 104, 130, 140, 144; 227, note 300. 

Thorn, Declaration of, 141, 143, 145. 

Throne, pagan sin of worshipping a, 105. 

Timothy, 71. 

Tittmann, 128. 

Tolstoy, Count Dmitry; on the causes of the fall of Protestantism in Poland, τότ. 


Tradition, the universal historic, 88; the Six Synods decided in accordance with 
it, 89, 159; all should restore it, 90, 91, 92, 248, 249; what it teaches, go, g1, 
92; 248, 249; the heretical Councils decided contrary to it, 159; the Arians 
disregarded it, 167, 248, 249. 

Transubstantiation, 4, 6, 49, τοῦ. See under “ Lucharist.” 

Treat’s Catholic Faith, 94, 95. 


Index I.—General Index. 467 


Trent form of Constantinopolitan Creed, 144, 157; Trent rejected by the Scotch 
Reformed, 153. 

Tribune, N. Y., matter from on the VI. Synods, 3. 

Trine immersion, 36, 90, 91, 92, 122; 409, note 632. See ‘‘ Baptism.” See 
“ Bingham.”’ 

Trinity. See under ‘‘ Councils,” ‘ Creeds,”’ and 5, 8, 134, 136, 137, 154, 155; 
225, 226; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not three Gods, but three 
Parts of One God, 249. 

Trisagion, Armenian form of, 57-60; the Greeks on, 59. 

Turk, the; God’s curse, 40. 

Trullo, Council of; an expression in Canon I. of, 31; on long hair on men, 39; 
commands the Eucharistic bread and wine to be given separately; its adop- 
tion of the action of Carthage against Rome should be made universal, 93. 

Tyler, Rev. J. E., his works against different sorts of creature-worship com- 
mended, 41; 113, note 83; 213. 

Union of East and West, το, 12, 36, 40, 41. 

Universal Church, 2, 12. 

Universalists, Preface 11. 

Unleavened bread, 36,57. See under ‘‘Leavened Bread,’ ‘‘ Eucharist,’ and 
“ Wafers.’ See also under ἄζυμα in the Greek Index. 

Valens, the Arian Emperor; he persecuted, 213, 214. 

Valentinian I., Emperor, 214. 

Valentinus, 185, 188, 190, ΙΘΙ. 

Valesius, page 349, note 524; page 374. 

Vatican Council, A. D. 1870; 88, 92. 

Veil, the, 40; its use in the Oriental Church derived from the temple service of 
the Israelites, 69; why never used in the West, 69, 70; the later Creeks 
have abolished it for the Iconostasis, 69; should be used among them, 92. 

Venables, 326, 327. 

Vestments, clerical. See ‘‘ Colobion,” and ‘ Hemiphorium.” 

Victoria, Queen, 105. 

Viftorinus of Petau, or Pettau, 110, 189. 

Vigilius, Pope, censured by the Fifth Council for not doing his duty against 
heretics, 263. 

Vincent of Lerius, 110, 215, aud Preface vi. 

Virgin Mary, worship of rejected, 4, 6, 104. 

Viadislaus IV., 145, 162. 

Voigt, 181. 

Voltaire, 149. 

Wafers, in the Eucharist. See ‘“ Auchartst,”’ and pagrs 57, 105 and 107. 

Waldenses, 139. 

Waterland, 32, note; 87, note. 

Western Empire, the, 11. 

Western Church, 12; customs of, 70; persecuted by Arians, 214-217. 

Western COMMUNIONS, 23. 

Whittingham, Bishop; disobeyed by some of his clerics on Confession, 126, 


468 Index I—General Index. 


Whoredom, fleshly, 109. 

Whoredom, spiritual, 109. 

William of Hesse, 142. 

Wilson, 50, 71, 72. 

Wiseman, Cardinal, authorizes the ‘‘ Raccolta,”’ 224. 

Wladislas, 31. 

Wolff, Dr., 55. 

Women. See ‘‘ Co-in-led.’’ 

Word, God the. See ‘‘ Zogos,’’? which in Greek means ‘‘ Word.’’ 

Works of Supererogation, 36. 

Worship, ats of mentioned in Scripture, 227, note 302; worship of the Sacred 
Heart of Jesus; condemned by the Third Synod, 89; to worship Christ as a 
creature, and by necessary implication any other creature is to turn one’s 
back on God, 222, 228; worship of Saints; see “Jnvocation of Saints,” 
“Bowing,” and ‘‘ Creature-Worship,’’ 236. 

Xenajas, 80. 

Yezdedjerd, 11; 58, note. 

Young, Bishop of Florida, 44; note 105. 

Zeno, Bishop of Verona, r1o. 

Zosimus, Pope, 5. 

Zosimus, the pagan historian; his account of Constantine’s Conversion, 385-388 

Zuinglian Creed, the, 150. 


ΤΕΓΕ ΕΗ Oe 


INDEX; ΤῸ LEXIS, ΘΕ HOLY: SCRIPTURE. 


REMARKS. 


The Creed of Nicaea is almost wholly in the exaé? words of Scrip- 
ture and wholly in its sezse. That will be shown at length in 
another volume of this set on Nicaea, where a comparison is made 
between the two. Both the Ecumenical Creeds, that of the First 
Council, and that of the Second, are preeminently Scriptural; and so 
are of supreme authority as being couched in inspired language, as 
well as being the utterances of that Universal Christ-commissioned 
Apostolate to whom He has promised His Holy Spirit to guide them 
into all truth (1) and which is to abide with them in teaching (and 
in defining and in ruling which are parts of teaching), to the end of 
the world (2). The Holy Spirit guided them into the truth in their 
two meetings or Councils at Jerusalem of which we read in Acts XI. 
and XV., and in the Six Ecumenical Councils thereafter; and by His 
aid they drew up the two Ecumenical Creeds, all their Definitions on 
them and on the Faith, and all such of their Canons as were received 
and approved by the whole Apostolate, East and West. And because 
the Decisions of the Six Councils of the whole Christian world were 
put forth with the promised help and guidance of the Holy Ghost, 
therefore he who contravenes and rejects them is to be counted by us 
“as a heathen man and a publican’? (Matt. XVIII., 17). For, led by 
the Spirit of God, the Christian Church is “‘ the pillar and ground of 
the truth’’ (1. Tim. III., 15); and whatsoever its Apostolate binds 
on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever they loose on 
earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. XVIII., 18). 


(1). John XIV., 16, 17; John XV., 26; John XVI, 13. 
(2). Matt. XXVIII, 19, 20. 


470 index. 


The Synodal Epistle of Nicaea imitates Scripture language, 
more or less, as do the Canons also, but the direct quotations of texts 
are found only in Canon II., where I. Timothy III., 6, is cited, and 
in Canon XVII., where Psalm XV., 5 (Psalm XIV., 5, Septuagint), 
is quoted. Yet the expression in Canon XII. about dogs returning 
to theiy own vomit, isa plain imitation of the language of Proverbs 
XXVI., 11, and II. Peter II., 22; and the expression Eucharist (3), 
that is Thanksgiving, applied to the Lord’s Supper in Canons XIII. 
and XVIII., is plainly derived from the statement that the Lord 
gave thanks for the leavened bread (4) (ἄρτος), and the wine in that 
sacred rite (5). 


The texts most relied on by the Orthodox for the Divinity of the 
Logos and for his consubstantiality and coeternity with the Father 
were John VIII., 42, “17 came out of God.” 

John XVI., 28, ‘‘ came out of the Father,’’ and 


Hebrews I., 3, ‘‘ Charaéter of His Substance.’’ Hence we find 
them so often quoted below and elsewhere. 

It is to be very much regretted that all of them are sadly mis- 
translated in our common King James’ Version. 

I hope to revise that Version soon, if means be given me to pub- 
lish it. 

St. Athanasius in his 7reat?ses Against Arianism treats of several 
texts and refutes the Arian perversion of them; but I ought to add 
that Newman’s translation does not always clearly bring out St. 
Athanasius’ meaning, because he unwisely follows our inaccurate 
English Common Version of some of them. See under them all 
below also, and the Scripture Indexes to Athanasius’ works, those 
to Epiphanius, and those to the other Orthodox champions. 

The texts oftenest perverted by the Arians, and most relied on 
by them were the Septuagint of Proverbs VIII., 22, and Colossians 
I., 15. Others will be found mentioned in Athanasius’ Treatises, 
where he refutes their perversions of them. 


a ae ea 


(3). Greek, Εὐχαριστία. 


(4). Greek, εὐχαριστήσας, Matt. XXVI., 27; Mark XIV., 23; Luke XXIL, το; 
and I. Cor. XI., 24. 


(5). See the texts referred to in the note last above. 


Index. 


OLD TESTAMENT. 


GENESIS. 
Ἰ ls eee eee eed! 
DOO ke Ghee a= 231, note 309 


ON GG eee 231, note 309 
ΧΥΤΙ., τ- ἡ ------- 231, note 309 
RIO Oy Ξ Ξ- 231, note 310 

KOREN 30, == — 231, note 309 
XLVIIL., 15, 16-223; 231, note 309 
EXODUS. 

NOR 7 5 5 228, note 303 

XX., 4, 5 --243; 245, note 375 

MOG iy Gy Chere ces 40, 106 

XXXII, 5------------------ 109 
DEUTERONOMY. 

ἘΠ 125. ane ae aa 134 

ies Rites 6 Sa - ὕ- 248 

WAG ee ee ----- - 240 

XVIL., 2, 3, 5, 6, 7--------- 248 


XXXII., 18; 367,text,and note 568 


JUDGES. 
PRO E Oya em 234, note 325 
II. SAMUEL. 
Vi Aaa ae co ee ------- 245 
I. KINGS. 
INKS Pie (aOR kee hee 109 
II. KINGS. 
ἘΞ ΟΣ Ss Τ 
II. CHRONICLES. 
SIOIOMI ON G5 TET aaa eee 12 


NEHEMIAH. 
OGG ae eS eS 231, note 
ἘΝῚ TOS eee see πε 
JOB. 
SGV TS Si ae eee ae 


XXXVIII., 28, Sept. ; 367, text, 
and note 570. 


PSALMS. 


Oy jae 233, note 
XV., 5, (XIV., 5, Septua- 

gint); 421. 
SEXO Gee eae 189, 245, 
XLV. τ, Sept.;. (Ps: ΣΤ: 
1, King James Ver- 
sion), 180, note 

195; 189. 

XLV., 6 
POL OVING Cee - τ ------- 
LXXXI., 6, Sept.(LXXXII.,6, 
English Version); 
219, notes 272, 273. 
ΕΞ ΤΙ Θ᾽ ΘΕ ἘΞ - 
CIX., 3, Sept. (Psalm CX., 
3, King James Ver- 
sion), 187, note 220; 
189, 193; 368, note 


571. 

(OD: <a ee Ξε τις 231, note 

ἜΣΕΙ τ 5 ν 231, note 
PROVERBS. 


VIII., 22, 23, 25, Sept.; note 
200 on page 180; 
page 191, 277, 338; 


471 


309 
109 


221 


318 


246 


312 
106 


242 


511 
313 


472 Index. 
a ab ae τς πρός, κα ἀν υεος πραν τνς ρο ρος ὐπνδ α  Ψ.Ν 


343, note 515; page EZEKIEL. 
365, text, and notes 
554, 558; page 366, THY, 13; 20sec cease ree 248 
text, and note 560; VIII., 3 to 18 inclusive ---_ 106 
page 367, note 563. SEX NG 76 τ δὲν Ὁ 248 
PROPS G25 ee aS eae ee 221 
DANIEL. 
ISAIAH. 
III., 1-30; 
13. iSept: χουν τι 1} 1-30; 242, text, and 
and note 566. | note 361. 
10 Ci aie meee eee 328, 329 | ΔΙ ΟΞ Ἐπ 9998. 200 
DQ) Beeson eee ys 228, note 303 
ΠΝ: τ; Septicas 2 235, twice. HOSEA. 
XLV., pages 14, 15, 16, as ΠῚ 
in Faustin’s Latin SU 3/2) 3-- τοθ τ. 209) 253 
translation of the ΙΝ 9, εἴοΞ ἘΞ 5: Ὁ 244 
Septuagint Greek 
Version, 251, 252. APOCHRYPHA. 
JEREMIAH. ECCLESIASTICUS. 
TIT, 23, Βερί.----------- 241 XV) Ὁ τὺ eee 189, thrice 
ΠΡ 55 6 ee eee ee 70 
LAMENTATIONS. BARUCH. 
ἘΠ ΟΞ a a ee A σι 40 ΤΠ 335 Ξε τειν 242 


NEW TESTAMENT. 


—_— 


MATTHEW. 478; page 240, 243. 
ΤΠ AG ose Col Ae ee 16, twice 249, 255; page 316, 
III., 17; 222; 233, note 319, note 472; page 325; 

and page 253. note 553 on page 
IV., 10; pages 107, 108, 365; 373, note 591. 
ΤΙΝ, 183, ΤΟΣ; 113% Ἐν Ties Ξ Ξε Ὁ 234, note 320 
219, note 271; page Wii, peje eae eee 221, note 287 
235, (John IV.; 20, 20: fae τὸς 169 
is there a mistake SVT. 5 a2 233, note 319 
for Matt. IV., 10); VAT 5-21 ἘΞ ee 263 
page 228, note 302, XVIII., 17, 18; pages 2, 10, 11, 
twice, and note 86, 98; 345, note 


303; page 329, note 521, twice; page 


Index. 


346, note 522; page 
368, note 571; page 
373, note 592. 
ΤΙ wore st eee 263 
DO DEE pee ee eR 116 
RV EES 16-202 Ὁ 25-2 263 
DD Q\WA OD BM tye eee es 240, note 355 
ΟΣ ΜΠ το τὸς ee εν 320, 340 
XXVIII., 19, 20; pages 2, 15, 
90, 134; page 345, 
note 521. 
MARK. 
Jo Hue Sees osa 233, note 319 
DO ee eee ee 234, note 320 
Wis 2s ee 221, note 287 
LOG 5 ty [mesa 233, note 319 
Mal 20258 Ξε ee ee eee 240 
Eas 20, 430222 -- --.-. 104, 115 
VIE IG= <2 eos 8 345, note 521 
LUKE. 
ΠΕΡ eee ee Ὸ 219, note 275 
TT, 52922 foes 233, note 319 
IV., 8; page 228, note 302, 
and page 243. See 
Matt. IV., ro. 
TX 35 aaa se 233, note 319 
>= [0G 5 ΞΞΞ ae. 221, note 287 


ΠῚ eee note 594, page 377 


JOHN. 

E,, 1; 134,'212: 221, note 
315; page 373, note 
592. 

I., 3; 235, note 338; page 
237, note 342, and 
page 245, note 379. 

ΤῸ; ΠΟ τ 219, note 275 

I., 14; 212, 238; 373,note 592 

ΠῚ BiG 2so2 se 250, note 397 

IV., 21, 22, 24; page 228, 

note 302. 


VIII., 42; page 179, note 


192; page 187, notes 
219, 221; page 193; 


473 


218, note 271; page 
364, note 551; page 
365, notes 554, 558; 
page 368, note 571. 


TX Ἐπ eee 240, note 
XG, GO ae ξένε τ: 250, 
πο, 322-.- δε ee 

SS ΞΕ ΞΕ ΕΘ τ τ ΕΣ 
ΧΟΥ͂Ν Greases sees 225, 


XIV., 9; 219, note 278; page 
235, note 337. 
XV), 16; 17, 1S and 26--—= 
ΣΕ ΤΟ 17:5 = 345, note 
OV TO mee ae 235, note 
EXC VE 2022 =e 2, 45, 82 and 
ERE ΤΣ ἘΞ ΞΞ eee oe Ὅν 
ΧΨΙΣ ἸΔΈ a Ὁ 345, note 
SEV. ngs τευ Le 
XVI., 23, 24, 26--235, note 
XVI., 28; page 179, note 
192; page 187,notes 
219, 221; page 193; 
364, note 551; page 
365, notes 554, 555 
and 558; page 568, 
note 571. 
DWTS Bisa - 2 se eee 241, 
VAS 5 TOS τ ee 
GV / Teles ΤΙ ΤΟΙ 2225. Ἐπ Ὁ 
ΣΧ ΗΠ π5.- 35... τ 


ΣΝ ΤΠ iets) ee eos ere 


RN aig α OAS ete meena τ 
OX.) 28; 212, 225; 372, tote 


ACTS. 


ΤΠ. 36; page 231, note 
316; page 236. 

II., 38; page 109; 318 
note 474; page 330. 


IV 2 eae ee 235, note 
Ἀπ ἂν ee eee 
VALI qe See 231, note 
Wi Ak ee 228, note 
ΚΤ ΘΙ ee es π᾿ 
Daas Uae Ἐν 245, note 
2.00 Gh eee eee 233, note 


339 

69 
309 
302 
234 
3.1 
218 


4714 Lhdex. 
XV., 1-36; pages 28, 29, Wisi 27 cok Pee ees -39 
94, 263; 269 twice. Wits yen 368, note 571 
XV., 29-------287, note 450% 
VIL too eee ee el 5 400 PHILIPPIANS. 
10 ails ee ΞΕ ΌΞΞΘΞΞ 200 
ROMANS. Πρ ee 235, note 330 
Te, 22.295 es 243, 245 COLOSSIANS. 
I., 25; page 228, note Ι., 15; page 219, note 
S02 RPRB E220, 245) 276; page 231, note 
237. : ὲ 
I., 25 and after_----250, 251 eae 3375339) 
ae 2 Rae a ae == 99 |e en eh ene eee Ls 239 
aE Re res eee 232 {ΠῚ ΠῚ 2 ἘΞ’ ΘΙ ΞΘ ere 330 
ἍΙ::5:Ξ:.-ΞΞΞ 330; 409, note 632 
TC ig ee eee eet oe 221 I. THESSALONIANS. 
XVI, 25ΞΞΞΞΣΞΟΞ 185, note 211 Te eRe aie ee a re Fy 223 
I. CORINTHIANS. V., 9 --------- 235, note 339 
I., 24; page 208, note II. THESSALONIANS. 
258; page 219, note TW Ge ΞΟ βυο ΝΤΣ 249 
276. : 
Wf ube Ξε ϑος  ξεξ. : 9 106 Τ᾿ TIMOTHY: 
V., 3-6----~------------ 106 Tx 203 Bee {ΕΞ ΘΕ ἘΞ τοῦ 
V., ττ--τ-------------- 248 ΠῚ λα Peri τ παν σεν 99 
V., τὸ, 1τ-------------- 120 TET 36: 2 Sit ie οι ἐν 409 
ΜῈ O)stOz ee === 228, note 302 — Tie ρόδον τ arene 5 
VIL, 38 Be es Se ae τὸ τ τα 113 LV. ΣΤ ΟΕ κὸν κυνδονς ἘῸΝ ἐς ko 152 
VIIL., 6; page 237, note 342; TV, ot preasees 218, note 269 
page 246, text and 
note 386. 1 is i a RO BS Bde 
By Ay 9 ene EES) I., 9; page 185, notes 207 and 
ἘΠ ἀπ Ree τ Ἐξ -- 39 211; 186, note 211. 
II. CORINTHIANS. Τ,,15:Ξ--------- ----- 19 
Nie 32- 5 19 
IV., 4; page 219, note 276; 
page 231, note 314. TITUS 
πεῖς I = meee 36 
; Tt? Goose eon eee 
GALATIANS. 1 qe ἘΠΕ ate εν ἐ ἢ 
bs Ganges ἘΠῚ ΣΕ ΞῸΣ 169, note 152 IDR a ΞΕ Ἐν 4og, note 632 
I., 8, 9---193; 345, note 521 
ΠῚ dace 287, note, 450% ἘΠΕΠΕΈ 
V., 19-22; page 228, note ΤΟ τὸ ἘΣΘ 255. ΠΟΘ᾽ 399 
302; page 249. I., 3; page 179, note 192; 
- page 203, note 233; 
EPHESIANS. page 218, text, and 
IV., 5; 318, note 474, page 330 note 271; page 219, 


Index 


text and note 274, 

page 364, note 551; 

365, notes 554, 555 

and 558; page 366, 

note 558. 

1 Gp 8|-.-.--Ξ- τ 5255. alo} He 3.19 

I., 6; page 186, note 212; 

page 228, note 302; 

page 234, text, and 

notes 321,326; page 

240, text,and notes 

356, 357; page 252; 

page 365, note 553. 
Mo; 55. -- --- 233, note 318 
Wake οὐρα 235, note 339 
VII., 25----------------- 225 
1S Oo ἘΠ 0 35 99. 69 


VO ts ee ἘΞ 212 
Mali 285... === 225, Note 302 


ἘΞ ΞΞΞ--- 219, note 275 
Vi 13, Τῶι το, τὸ, τῇ 18-- L27 


Ι. PETER: 
II., 5, 9---------------- 124 
Ἢ. BELER. 


Το τὴ; page: 233,, text, 
and note 319. 


475 


1 ee eee 219, note 275 

ΤΡ pe aoe 225 

1 20 See eee 124 

Ae pep ee ee τς 134 

Wi 20) 212413173, NOte 592 
JUDE. 

Ie 85:53 ΞΞ- -Ξ 186, note 212 
REVELATIONS. 

1 Ge oes ee oe ας 4, 6, 124 
ING BssoS StS Se ΞΞΞ 200 
ΚΟ Qn ae eee ane 185, note 211 

MLV. 4 22-2172) note 166 
SCV OW ea oa 228, note 302 
DOIN 12 ΡΞ ee 36 
ἘΥΙ, Det sees ὅς 228, note 302 


XIX., 10; page 228, note 
302; page 234. 
XXI., 8; page 109; page 
228, note 302; page 
249; page 345, note 
Ἐ21: 
XXII., 8, 9; page 228, note 
302; page 234, texts, 
and note 324. 


476 Index [1l.—Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 


PONS DID py. ες: 


INDEX TO GREEK WORDS AND GREEK 
EXPRESSIONS. 


For the chief distintively Orthodox terms, see in the General 
Index under ‘‘ Orthodox test-terms.’’ A part of them are specified 
below. ‘The rest are found as above. 


See, for the terms and expressions used by the Arians to state 
their heresies, under ‘‘ Avzan test-terms.’’ 


ἀγενητογενής, born without being made, page 179, note 191. 

ἀγεννητογενῆς, born without being created; page 179, note 191. 

ἀγένητος, unmade, page 229, note 306. 

ἀγέννητος, uncreated; page 202, note 231; page 343, note 514; page 366, note 561. 

adéwc, without fear; page 302, note 471. 

ἀειγενῆς, always born, page 179, note 191. 

ἄζυμα, unleavened wafers, unleavened things; pages 31, 36, 57, 125. 

ἀθεότητος, Atheism, being without God; page 226, note 297; the term is applied 
by Athanasius to the Arians, ibid. 

ἀθέους, Atheists, that is, being without God, note 502 on page 373. 

αἵρεσιν, heresy, applied to Arian creature-worship; page 218, note 268. 

αἰωνίων, page 184, note 207. See there for its meaning. 

ἀλλοιωτόν, convertible; page 306. 

ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἸΚαθαλικὴ ᾿Εκκλησία, the Universal Church anathematizes, that is 
curses, page 306. 

avadhoiwtoc, not convertible into anything else; page 180. 

ἀνθρωπολατρεία, giving service, that is worship, to a Man; St. Athanasius con- 
demns it as creature-worship and contrary to Scripture; page 233, top. 


Index I11.—Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 477 


ἀνθρωπολατρέω, to serve, that is to worship a Man, page 233. 

ἀνθρωπολάτρης, Man-Service, that is, Man-worship, that is, worshipping a Man, 
page 233. 

ἀνθρωποφαγία, eating a Man, that is, Man-eating, that is cannibalism, charged by 
St. Cyril of Alexandria on Nestorius as the necessary result of his error of 
the actual eating of Christ’s human body in the Eucharist; page 50. 

ἀπεικάζοντες, likening; page 242, note 362. 

ἀνθρώπων αἱρετικῶν ἀκαταχήτων, uncatechized heretical men, page 180, note 194. 

ἀπὸ, from, how it differs from ἐκ, out of; page 193. 

ἀπὸ τοῦ Yiov, from the Son; page 32. 

᾿Αρειομανῖται, Ariomantiacs, that is, drian maniacs, page 226, note 297. 

ἄρτος, leavened bread; pages 31, 57, 125. 

ἄρχει αὐτοῦ, He began Him, or He rules Him, page 187, note 218. 

ἀρχή, origin, originator, μίαν ἀρχήν, one originator, page 226, note 293; τρεῖς ἀρχάς, 
three originators; page 226, note 292: Arian senses. 

ἀρχὴ αὐτοῦ, His Originator; page 187, note 217: Arian sense. 

ἀρχήν, beginning; page 277. The Orthodox taught that the Father is the source 
(τὴν ἀρχήν) of the Logos and the Holy Ghost, but not that He made them. 
They had always been in Him before they came out of Him. 

ἀρχιεπίσκοπος, Archbishop, or Chief Bishop; page 173, note 168. 

ἀρχιερεύς, High Priest; page 168, text, and note 148; 273, text, and note 428. 

ἀρχιερωσύνη, High Priesthood, that is, the episcopate; page 168, text, and note 
148. 

ἀσεβοῦσιν, they ave impious; page 227, note 297, where St. Athanasius charges the 
Arians with impiety for asserting that God the Word is a creature, and so 
with falling into the sins of polytheism and creature-worship. See the 
text of pages 226, 227, 228 and 229 on that. 

ag’ ov γέγονεν, from when He was made; page 208, note 257. 


it 


γενηθῆναι, made, page 309. 

γενητός, made, cannot be said of God; page 243. Τεννητός, born, may be used of the 
birth of God the Word, ibid. Eusebius of Caesarea, the Arian, uses 
γενητός in the sense of created; page 343, note 513. Γενητός used in the 
sense of made, and created, on page 229, note 306, and on page 358, note 
534- 

yevviw, to bring forth, passive, to be born, page 179, note 191; pages 181, 182, 306, 
309, 322; 343, note 512; 344, note 517; page 367, notes 563, 564, 567. See 
also πρίν, etc., below. 

γεννητός, generated, born; page 202, note 231; page 243, note 369; page 366, note- 
562, and page 367, note 563. 

γράφω, page 397; ἐο write (to subscribe ?), page 397. 


478 Index [1I.—Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 


ee SS TE Sl Re ae τες ie τ τ 


4 


dv αὐτοῦ, through Him; page 237, note 342. 
δόξας, dignities, glories; page 186, note 212. 
dotao, servants, slaves; note 329, page 235. 
δυάς, Duad, page 204, note 239. 


E 


ἕν εἶδος Θεότητος, one kind of Divinity; note 297, page 226. 

εἰδώλοις, ‘idols,’ that is, “‘1mages;’’ page 242, note 362. 

εἰδωλολάτραι, idolaters, that is, image-worshippers, applied to the Arians because 
they worshipped a mere created Christ; page 238, note 350; compare page 
242, note 362, where Athanasius calls that Arian idolatry dlasphemy 
against themselves, that is to their own harm. 


εἰκόνα, likeness, used for Nebuchadnezzar’s graven image; page 242, note 362. 


In the passages of Scripture following which speak of the Logos 
as born out of (x) the Father the Orthodox took ἐχ in that first and 
radical sense, and so insisted, in accordance with Hebrews I., 3, Char- 
aéter of his Substance, that as born out of Him He was ‘‘ of the same 
substance as the Father’? (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί). Their credal utterances 
below were based on that understanding and hence they insisted that 
the Word is co-eternal with the Father and very God, and as being 
God is therefore to be worshipped. Besides they proved, as for in- 
stance in passages quoted from Athanasius above, that bowing, pros- 
tration, prayer and sacrifice, which are a¢ts of religious service, were 
given to the Logos in Scripture, and that as by Christ’s law in Matt., 
IV., 10, no act of religious service may be given to any creature, 
therefore He must be God. 


The Arians, as we see in the passages above quoted from their 
leaders Arius himself and Eusebius of Nicomedia, cavilled endlessly 
against that natural sense of those texts, insisted that He did not 
come out of the substance of the Father, but was created; and yet, 
though a creature, is to be deemed a God other than the Father, and, 
as being only a mere creature, inferior to Him; and, moreover, is to 
be worshipped by bowing, etc.; and hence they landed, on their own 
showing, in creature-service and in polytheism. 


ἐκ, ‘out of,” how it differs from ἀπὸ, ‘from,’ page 193. See also under ἀπὸ τοῦ 
Υἱοῦ, and ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. ὶ 


Index I11.—Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 479 


ἐκ γαστρὺς πρὸ ᾿Εωςφόρου ἐγέννησά ce, “7 brought thee forth out of the insides before 
the morning star,’ page 187, note 220; page 193; 368, note 571. 
ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον, ‘‘L came out of God,” John VIII., 42; page 187, note 219; 193; 
page 365, note 558; page 368, note 571. 
ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπέστη, He has existed from God, page 204, note 243. 
ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας Tov Πατρός, ‘‘ out of the substance of the Father,’ pages 306, 382, 403. 
ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, ‘‘ I came out of the Father,’’ John XVI., 28; page 187, note 
219; 193; page 365, note 558; page 368, note 571. 
ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, ‘‘ out of the Father,’ page 343, note 515. 
ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεγεννῆσθαι, ‘‘ born out of the Father,’ page 343, note 512; τὸν ἐκ τοῦ 
Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, ‘‘who was born out of the Father 
before ali the worlds,’’ page 83. 
ἐκ τοῦ Yiov, ‘‘ out of the Son,’ page 33. 
ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ, ‘in the name of Jesus,” page 235, note 330. 
ἐξ ἀποῤῥοίας τῆς οὐσίας, “outflow from His substance,” page 365, note 557. 
ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ‘out of Him,’’ page 187, note 219; page 246, note 387; page 365, note 
555; compare δ ov, page 246, note 389. 
ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας, ‘‘out of another subsistence or substance,’ page 382. 
ξ οὐκ ὄντων, “out of things not existing,’ that is, ‘out of nothing,’ page 207, 
notes 249, 250; page 346, note 523; page 392, note 619. 
& ὑποκείμενου τινός, οὐδὲ, “nor out of any previously existing thing,’ page 181, 
note 201. 
ἐπικαλοῦμεθα, ““ we invoke,” page 239, note 350. 
ἐπιφάνια, ‘‘ Christmas,’ and ‘‘ Epiphany,’ that is, “‘showing,;’’ page 60 
ἐπιφάνιος, ‘ mantfest,”’ ‘shown,’ page 60. 
ἐτεροειδές, ‘difference of kind,’’ page 226, note 297. 


om © 


, 


om 


H 


ἡγήσατο, “led,” “was a leader,;”’ page 262. 

ἡμιφάριον, ‘a half pharos;’’ page 166, note 140. 

ἡμιφόριον, ‘a half pharos;”’ page 166, note 140. 

jv ποτε bre οὐκ ἦν, “there was once when He was not,’ page 207, note 251; page 
346, note 523; page 392, note 620. 


θΘ 


Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, ‘God out of God;’’ pages 306, 307, 402. 

Θεὸς, πλήρης μονογενής, ‘full God, sole generated,” note 198, page 180. 

Θεοτόκος, ‘ Bringer forth of God;’’ pages 47, 156. 

Θεοφάνια, ‘* The God showing,’ ‘‘ Theophany,” that is, ‘ Epiphany,” and also 
‘ Christmas,’ page 60. 


480 Index [11.—Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 


Hf 


Ἱερὰ Κατήχησις, *‘ Sacred Instruction,” 59. 
Iepa Σύνοψις, ‘Sacred Synopsts’’ or ‘‘ Sacred Compendium, ’’ page 32. 


K 


καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ““ Untversal and Apostolic Church,’ pages 52, 
306, 307, 313, 314, 315, 319; compare for Latin translations pages 520, 321, 
and 324. 

κατορθώμασι, ‘‘rightings,;’’ page 299, note 468. 

Koy ψήφῳ, “by a common vote,’ page 303. 

κοινωνός, ‘‘sharer,’’ page 278, text, and note 439. 

κολοβίων and κολόβιον, ‘an undergarment with short sleeves,’ page 166, note 141. 

κτίζω, ‘‘I build, 7 create,;’’ pages 277 and 191; page 365, note 558; and in the 
Index to Texts of Scripture. See under Proverbs VIII., 22. 

κτίσις, ‘‘creation,’’ ‘creature,’ page 277, note 435; κτίσει δουλεύοντες, ““ serving 
a creature; ”’ page 237, note 343; compare page 243, note 369, and page 
243, note 362; page 244, note 371; and page 245, notes 373, 374. 

κτίσμα, ‘‘creature;’’ page 226, note 297; page 229, note 306; page 222, note 268. 
page 230, note 307; page 234, note 322; page 236, note 341; page 342, note 
510; page 344, note 517; note 534, page 358. 

κτισματολατρεία, ‘ creature-service,”’ that is, ‘‘creature-worship,;’’ page 232; called 
a ‘“‘heresy,”’ by St. Athanasius, page 218, note 268; and ‘‘alien and not 
Srom the Fathers,” ibid. 

κτίστης, ‘ Creator,’ page 277, note 435. 

κτιστολάτρης, ‘‘ creature-server,’’ that is, creature-worshipper;’’ page 277, note 
435; compare page 240, note 356. 

κτιστός, page 240, note 356, and page 242, note 362; page 244, note 371; pages 306, 
397, 399, 313, 314, 315, 319, 321, 322, 324. 

κύριος, ‘ Lord,’’ ‘“‘Master,;’’ page 278, text, and notes 438 and 439. 


A 


» 


λατρεία, “" service, worship;’’ page 218, and note 268, ‘‘ creature-service”’ called 
‘‘ heresy,’ ibid. 

λατρεύω, ‘ 7 serve,’ ‘I worship;’’ page 228, note 302, five times; and page 229, 
note 306. 

λογίοις, τοῖς Θείοις, ‘the divine Oracles,’’ page 168, note 149. ; 

τὸν Λόγον τοῦ Πατρός, ‘‘ the Word of the Father,’ page 277, note 435. See under 
οὐσία below. 

ὁ Λόγος ᾿Ειδιάθετος, ‘‘ the Word within”? [the Father], pages 17, 83, 179, note 191. 

ὁ Adyoc Upodopixée, ‘the Word borne forth’’ [out of the Father]; page 17, 83; 179, 
note IgI. 


Index Lll.—Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 481 


M 


μαθήσει, ‘ lesson,’ page 329, note 480. 

μεμετρημένον, “‘measured;’’ page 275, note 432. 

μέρος αὐτοῦ, “ part of Him,’ note 556, page 365. 

μέρος αὐτοῦ ὁμοούσιον, ‘a same substance, Part of Him,’’ page 187, note 222. 
μετοχη, ‘by communion,” “by participation,’ page 208, note 255; 227, note 297. 
Μήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ‘‘ Mother of God,’ page 47, 48. 

Movac, ‘‘ Monad,’’ page 204, note 239. 

Μονογενής, ‘‘ Sole-Born,’’ page 204, note 240; page 277, note 435. 

μυστήριον, ‘mystery,’ page 297, note 465. 

μυστικωτέρα, more mystic, or more regular; page 297, note 465. 


N 


νεόφυτον, newly planted; page 409, text, and note 632. 
0 


ὁμοούσιος, of the same substance, page 203, notes 233 and 237; pages 276, 306, 320; 
322, twice; pages 337, 340; 341, notes 504 and 507; page 342, text, and note 
509; 343; 344, notes 516, 517; page 358, note 534; page 360, text, and note 
539; pages 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, and 4o3. See under οὐσία. 

ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, of the same substance as the Father, page 203, note 237; pages 
343; 344, note 517; pages 382, 383, 384, 385. See under οὐσία below. See ΄ 
also under ὁμοούσιος, 

ὁμοουσιότητος, consubstantiality, same substanceness, page 277, note 435. 

‘Ob ποιηθέντα, not made; page 179, note 191; pages 182, 306, and 344, note 517. 

οὐκ ἣν πρὶν ποιηθῃ, He was not before He was made, page 222, note 288. See πρίν 
in this Greek Index. See under ποιέω and πρίν. 

οὐσία, substance, page 226, note 297; page 344, note 517; page 358, note 534. See 
Ἔκ and "Ἐξ: note 571 on page 367; 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 401, 402, 403. 
On page 226, note 297, and on pages 227, 228, and 229, Athanasius rebukes 
Arius for making the Logos a creature, and for asserting that the Holy 
Ghost was made out of nothing, and so denying their consubstantiality 
with the Father; and for falling, as a consequence, into the sins of poly- 
theism and creature-worship. See under ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί and ὁμοούσιος. 


I 


πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καί ἀοράτων ποιητήν, Maker of all visible and of all invisible 
things; page 306; page 51, note 34 and note ‘‘a.’ 

πάπας, Father, Pope; page 184, note 205. It was formerly applied to all Bishops. 

παπᾶς, Father; applied to Presbyters, page 184, note 205. 


482 Jndex Lll.—Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 


παροικίᾳ, dlocese; page 298, note 466; 338, note 498. 

Πατρός, ἀπὸ τοῦ, from the Father; page 32. 

περιδρομή, twisting about; note 588 on page 372. 

πηδάλιον, rudder, page 24, note 4; 31; 90, note 70. 

πιστεύω and Πιστεύομεν, 7 believe, and we believe; pages 25, 306; 339, note 500; 351. 

πίστις, faith; page 329, note 480, twice; page 341, note 508; page 344, note 518; 
page 345, note 520; page 370, note 582; compare note 577 on the same page. 

Πνεῦμα, Spirit; page 246, note 383, and pages 226 and 227, text, and note 
297; Arius denied that the Holy Ghost is of the same substance as the 
Father, for he asserted that He was made out of nothing; hence, according 
to Arius, the Spirit did not come out of His eternal substance, but is a 
mere creature. So he taught that the Trinity are three different sub- 
stances. See under “ Arius,” and “ /Zypostases,’’ where 203, 204, should 
be read instead of ‘‘214;’’ and page 186, text and notes. Hence, as 
Athanasius teaches, he ended in making three Gods, and so in polytheism 
and in creature-worship. See pages 226, 227, 228, 229, and the notes there, 
and under “Arius’’ and ‘‘ Hypostases,”’ in the General Index 

ποιξω, See under ov and οὖκ, 

ποίημα, work, pages 344, note 517, and page 358, note 534. 

πολυθεότητος, polytheism, page 226, note 297. St. Athanasius charges the Arians 
with it, ibid, text and note. 

πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ qv, Before He was born He was not; page 84; 207, note 252; 
page 392, note 621. 

προβαλεύς, emitter; page 190. 

προβολῆ, emission, issue; page 187, note 222, 188, 189. 

προεδρία, foreseal, presidency, prelacy,; page 273, note 427, and note 588 on pages 
371 and 372. 

πρόεδρος, Foresitter, President, Bishop; page 262, note 421; 263; 273, note 427; 
pages 274, 279, and 371, note 588. 

προσκυνέω, 7 bow, 7 worship; page 228, note 302, six times; page 234, note 322, 
323, 324; 235, note 334; page 236, note 341; page 240, note 356, and page 
243, note 369; page 245, notes 373, 374. 

προσκυνητός, to be bowed to, to be worshipped; page 240, note 356; and page 242, 
note 362; page 244, note 371; 325. 

Πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, page 337; 339, note 501. For the meaning, see both of 
those places; and compare on κτίσεως, page 366, note 558. 


συλλουκιανιστά, fellow-Lucianist; page 181, note 202. 

σύμβολον τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων͵ Symbol of the Apostles, that is, the so-called Apostles’ 
Creed; page 27, note 8. 

συναγένητος, co-unmade, page 186, note 215. 


Index II1.—Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 488 


συναγέννητος, co-ungenerated, page 186, note 215. 

συνέδριον: ἐν συνεδρίῳ, page 185, note 210. 

σύνοδον οἰκουμενικήν, Ecumenical Council, that is a Council of the whole Christian 
World, page 259. 

Σύνοψις ‘Iepd, Sacred Compendium, Sacred Synopsis, page 32. 

συνυποστήσαντος, page 186, note 212. See also ὑποστήσαντα below. For the mean- 
ing see note 212. 


τεκνοποιήσας, for the meaning see note 232; page 203, note 232. 
τρεπτόν, mutable; pages 306, 322. 


ὑπαγορεύσαντες, suggested, dittated, recited; notes 576, 581, on page 370. 

ὑπόστασις, subsistence, substance, page 186, note 214; page 203, note 233; page 218, 
note 271; page 344, note 517; pages 378, 379, 380. Τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, 379, 
380, 381, 382, 401. 


ὑποστήσαντα, page 185, note. See also συνυποστήσαντος above. For the meaning 
see note 208 on page 185. 


Φ 


φύρσις, mixture; page 242, note 360. 
φύσις, nature; page 242, note 360; page 343, note 514. 


χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως avtov, Character of His Substance; Hebrews I., 3; page 
203, note 233; page 218, note 271; page 365 and 366, note 558. 


χάρις, favor, grace; page 238, notes 347, 348. 

χριστοτόκος, Bringer Forth of the Anointed One; 156. 

χρόνος: πρὸ χρόνων καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων κτισθέντα, created before times and before worlds, 
page 185, note 211. πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, before world-times, page 186, note 
2it. . 


FOR A GRATEFUL AND ETERNAL REMEMBRANCE 
OF A“ MIRACLE OF. GOD'S” MERCY IN- SAVING 
THE BULK ΟΕ THE PAGES ΟΝ THIS. ΝΟΙΌΜΕ 
OF. THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL 
FROM UTTER DESTRUCTION. 


As far back as 1861, I could see the importance of the Six Sole 
Synods of the Undivided Church on matters of Church Authority. 
For in my ‘‘History of the Modes of Christian Baptism,’’ published 
in that year, I find that I have mentioned them as authoritative. 
About A. D. 1864, I had seen so much idolatrous and creature-wor- 
shipping Romanizing on the one hand, and of infidelizing on the other 
among some of the clergy and especially among some of those of the 
Anglican Communion, (not one of twenty of whom thoroughly 
understood them), and the consequent ruin of their souls and the 
souls of such as they idolatrized or infidelized, that I determined to 
do the good work of translating them for the general good. I hoped 
by so doing to do away with the misrepresentations put forth by 
errorists regarding them, and to show that their decisions are all 
good and that the observance of them would be a blessing. Sol 
toiled in season, out of season, early and late, in cold and heat, on 
my chosen task through long years, till I had broken myself down 
by my labors in nervous prostration. I had translated all the Decis- 
ions of the whole Six, and everything of the first Three, but could 
not publish for lack of funds. But in my sickness and its deep mis- 
ery, I found friends in Bishop Potter, of New York; Rev. Dr. Morgan 
Dix, of Trinity Church, New York; and Rev. Dr. J. H. Hopkins, 
and those whose names appear on the list in this volume of sub- 
scribers to the Fund to Publish the Six Ecumenical Councils, for they 
furnished me means to begin to print. From June, 1890, to March, 
1891, I had proceeded with the work of printing, correcting proof, 
etc., had expended for the work part of my own very small means, 
and all that had been given me up toa certain date; and felt joyful 
at the success of my work for Christ, and His Church and People, and 
so at last the 425 pages of the main body of my Volume I. of Nicaea 
had all been finished and set up, and electrotyped, and Doan & Pilson, 
of Jersey City, N. J., my printers, had sent the plates, with about 
$68 dollars’ worth of paper to print them on, to the d7gus Newspaper 
and Job office, 44 Montgomery St., in that city. I had paid about 
$350 on the plates, one-half of their total cost, and the $68 for the 


paper. Andnow, after my long years of toil in translating and writing, 
I hoped that I should soon see the first volume on Nicaea in print, 
and that it might interest scholars and lead them to publish other vol- 
umes of this set, which have been ready for the press for a long time 
and waiting for a publisher. 

The plates had been sent to the Avgws office in the week ending 
Saturday, March 21, 1891, and on that Saturday, about 10.30 at 
night I was in Hoboken, and then started to walk to my home in 
Jersey City, corner of Grove and York Streets. On the way, about 
11 P. M., I noticed a fire eastward, down toward the Hudson River, 
lighting up the sky under the low-lying, raining clouds. About the 
corner of Fourth or Fifth Street, on Grove, I asked a groceryman 
whom I saw putting in his stuff preparatory to closing, where the 
fire was. He told me that it was said to be the Argus office. I 
thought of my plates, and anxiously asked two others, whom I met 
further on, one or both of whom had been near the fire, and one of 
them told me that it was the Avgus, and he expressed his sympathy 
for me at what he deemed the certain loss of my plates. But I still 
believed that God would not suffer them to be destroyed, went home, 
knelt down,and prayed God the Father for Christ’s sake to save them 
and added the words ‘‘dy mzracle if necessary,’’ for I knew that nothing 
but a miracle could save them in that great flame. My prayer was 
short and in substance, or in exact words as follows: 


‘‘Heavenly Father thou seest that I have been working for Thee 
and the good of thy Church these many years in translating the Utter- 
ances of thy Church in the Six Ecumenical Councils; and the peril 
in which my work now is, plates and paper, from fire. I pray thee 
to save them, by miracle, if necessary, for Christ’s sake. Amen.”’ 


The plates were in seven wooden boxes, 64 in each of the first 
six boxes, and 41 in the last. They were on the fourth floor, one 
of the most flame-swept and most utterly destroyed in the whole 
building. Idid not know when I uttered my prayer that part of them 
had already been destroyed by the flames. The first box full, 64, 
had been put on the press, 500 copies of each had been printed, and 
the 64 had been returned and put into their own box. ‘The second box 
had been opened, and 500 copies of the first 16 pages, that is pages 65 
to 80 inclusive, had been printed, and they had been returned, and 
pages 81 to 96 inclusive had been put on the press in their place, and 
pages 97 to 128 inclusive were out of the box on the marble impos- 
ing stone to be used on the press, when the 16 pages, 81 to 96 inclu- 


sive, on the press were returned. The flames on the fourth floor had 
burnt up the opened box which had contained plates 65 to 128 inclu- 
sive, and the 48 pages of that 64, which were on the marble slab. 
It was about 40 by 36 inches, and about 3 inches thick. The only 
ones saved out of that box were the 16 which were on the press, which 
was on the second floor, where the fire had raged around them and 
above them and had injured the press itself, but happily had not 
destroyed them. 

And God had answered my prayer regarding all the rest of the 
425 plates, though I did not know it until Monday, March 23, 1891, 
after things had got cool; then I learned how God had answered my 
prayer -and wrought a miracle. Mr. Doan had before gone up the 
burnt stairs running from the third floor to the fourth, and looked and 
saw the fire smoldering and did not see the boxes, but deemed it un- 
safe to go on the fragment of the fourth floor which was all that was 
left of it. On Monday morning about 10 o’clock, Mr. Compton, 
who had charge of the fourth floor, and of the work on it and who 
therefore knew where my plates were, with Mr. Delavan, the book- 
keeper for the dzgws, and Mr. Pilson, went up on what remained of it, 
though none of them had expected to find the plates safe. For every- 
thing about was a scene of ruin. ‘The roof and the fifth floor had 
fallen and so had the bulk of the fourth. And on the fourth, and 
about where my plates had been, everything was burnt down; but on 
the fragment of the fourth which yet remained and which was yet 
covered with the burnt stuff which had fallen on it when the roof and 
the fifth floor came down, and with thestuff burnt on the fourth itself, 
they saw on the floor the large marble slab or table which is termed 
the tmposing stone, which was covered with the remains of burnt 
wood, etc. On its being lifted, it broke into pieces, for it had been 
cracked and destroyed by the fierce flame which had raged over, 
under, and around it; but under it the searchers found the 6 boxes 
which contained 361 of my plates. The 6 boxes had all been on fire 
and were all more or less burned on the tops and sides; some of them, 
indeed all of them so much so that there was not a perfect one among 
them. Therefore the finders took the plates out of them at once. 
The 6 were charred wood, and in places the fire had burned through 
some or all of them to the edge of the plates, one of which had been 
slightly touched by it. But it had a bad mistake on it and should 
have been corrected; and it has been. ‘The others, 360, came out 
unscathed by the raging flame, as the three Hebrew children came 
out of the fiery furnace (Daniel III., 1-30). How were they preserved? 


I answer that after the whole six boxes were on fire on their tops 
and sides, the wooden legs of the heavy marble slab, which were on fire, 
gave way and it fell over them all completely covering them and quench- 
ing the flames which it struck, and when the firemen threw water on 
the flames it extinguished the rest. Had the legs given away differently 
the slab would have been pitched in another direction and the boxes 
and their contents would have all been destroyed. The 48 plates and 
the open box from which they had been taken were utterly ruined. 
No trace of that box could be found. It, with the 48 plates taken out 
of it, had been on top of the imposing stone, not under it. And so 
fierce and hot had been the flames that the leaden amalgam backing 
to the 48 destroyed copper faced plates had run into one or two masses 
together, and even some of the copper had been burnt away, and 
drops of the melted glass from the skylight had fallen upon the 
copper of one of the two lumps of burnt plates when they were hot 
and remained imbedded in them. I have preserved one of them as 
a proof of the power of the heat where all my plates but 16 were and 
of the miracle of God’s mercy in preserving the 361 in boxes right 
near the burnt 48. Underneath the marble slab and the 6 boxes the 
fire on the floor below had burned holes through the fourth floor, and 
here and there right near the plates; and about two or three feet 
beyond them the whole floor had been burnt and had fallen. Noth- 
ing right near my plates had been saved. There were ten or fifteen 
thousand dollars’ worth of plates in the building, but nearly all were 
utterly destroyed. Only a few odd plates could be found. 

Of my paper over two-thirds were saved and usable, though 
part of the other third had been injured, some of it by fire, the rest 
by water. And though I had no insurance on the matter lost, kind 
friends have told me that they would give me something and the 
printers have offered to bear another part of the loss, so that all the 
damage will be fully repaired. 


Surely God, who inspired the Bishops at Nicaea to draw up its 
Creed, has, by miracle, saved its reproduction in my hands. Surely 
Christ, the Great Head of the Universal Church, who helped Athan- 
asius and his other Orthodox servants in their long and hard struggle 
against the rage of the powerful Arian Emperors, Constantius and 
Valens, and the whole unbelieving and creature-serving Arian party, 
and gave victory to.his work in their hands, will if we are faithful, 
help us against the unbelieving and the creature-serving of our day, 
and give final victory to His holy and saving work for the Christian 
faith in our hands. Seeing this miracle, we may all, with the best 
of reason, thank God and take courage. 


hee Hi Ϊ μὴν ἀπ νὰ ane Si i ἊΣ 
Te) oe fk μὰ tas 


᾿ ΤΑΣ 


To ALL CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS. 


NOTE WELL THE MOST IMPORTANT AND MOST AUTHORITATIVE 
CHRISTIAN DOCUMENTS NEXT TO THE SGRIPTURES NOW 


TRANSLATED IN FULL FOR THE FIRST TIME. 


A TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH 


OF THE 


oi ECUmenical Counc 


THE SOLE UTTERANCES OF THE WHOLE CHURCH BEFORE 
ITS DIVISION INTO EAST AND WEST IN THE 


NINTH CENTURY. 


TRANSLATED BY JAMES CHRYSTAL, M. A., 


AND OTHERS. 


The Terms are, Three Dollars a Volume to Subscribers to the Set; 


Four Dollars to all others. 


Books sent Prepaid on receipt of price. All orders and subscriptions should 
be forwarded by Money Order, Cheque, or Registered Letter, 
to JAMES CHRYSTAL, 255 Grove Street, 
Jersey City, New Jersey, U. 5. A. 


The following facts should be remembered : 


1. These documents, being the utterances of the undivided 
Church, stand next in authority to the Bible itself. 


2. ‘The great bulk of the Christian world, Reformed and Unre- 
formed, professes to respect their doctrines; indeed they are embodied, 
to a greater or less extent, in the formularies of all who profess to be 


Trinitarians. 


3. ‘There can be no union among the separated parts of Chris- 
tendom, unless on the basis of their doctrine, discipline and rite. 


4. ‘Their decisions are perfectly sound, for they teach scriptural 


truth without idolatry and without infidelity. 


5. The need of a translation of them all into English has long 
been felt by scholars, but the great extent of the work has deterred 
men from undertaking it. Not one-tenth of the matter in them has 


been rendered into English. 


6. ‘This is the only translation of αὐ their Decisions and Minutes 
ever attempted into English or any other modern language. If God 
prospers the work, and causes the subscriptions to it, and the gifts to 
the Publication Fund to come in in sufficient quantity, it is purposed 
to put out about one volume a year on the average, which at three 
dollars puts it within the power of the poorest cleric to get it, for it 
is less than a cent a day. Besides the original and the translation of 
the decisions it will contain matter historical, biographical, and theo- 
logical; and explanatory notes, with quotations from St. Athanasius, 
St. Epiphanius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and from other a¢tors in 
the scenes of the past, with much of the original Greek and Latin 


of ancient writers, and somewhat of German and French in the notes. 


No clergyman who would be well informed on the great funda- 


mentals of Christian faith can afford to lack one volume of the set- 


Each volume will make a most desirable Christmas or Easter or 
birthday present for a Clergyman, a Lord’s Day School Superintend- 


ent, or for any intelligent man. And great good for Orthodoxy can 


be done by its circulation. Every one’s aid is therefore earnestly 
solicited, for the greater the number of workers the greater the 
streugthening of the faith which saves. Copious General Indexes, 
with Indexes of Holy Scripture and of Greek words and Greek 


Expressions will accompany the volumes, each in its proper place. 


The first volume of Nicaea is now ready. It contains ail the 
undoubted remains of the Synod in Greek and English; that is its 
Creed, its Synodal Epistle and its XX. Canons. Besides it gives a 
translation of Arius’ own statements, those of his partisan, Eusebius 
of Nicomedia, and others of his heresy; and, on the other hand, four- 
teen passages from St. Athanasius and six from St. Epiphanius against 


his errors, and otuer quotations from other Orthodox writers. 


The work is divided into eight Chapters; the first two of which 
show how the Six Ecumenical Councils are regarded in the East, 
that is, in the Greek Church, and among the Nestorians, and among 
the Monophysites; and in the West, that is, in the Latin Communion, 
and among the larger Divisions of the Reformed, that is among the 
Auzlicans, the Lutherans, and the Presbyterians or Reformed, as 
they are also termed. The Third Chapter contains a full account of 
the Heresies of Arius; the Fourth treats of the Council itself; the 
Fifth of Documents before the Council, but bearing on it; the Sixth 
on the Synodal Epistle; the Seventh on the Creed, and the Eighth on 
the Canons. ‘The volume is made more convenient and useful and 
valuable by a full Table of Contents in front, and three Indexes at 
the end, namely: 1. A General Index; 2. An Index to Scripture 
Texts referred to; and 3. An Index to Greek Words and Greek 


Expressions found in it. 


The volume is printed on good stout paper, which, differently 
from much of the poor stuff sometimes put in books, allows of ink 
being used for the scholars’ notes in the margin. The pages are 
wider than the English edition of the Oxford Library of the Fathers, 
and than those of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. The text is 
in good readable Long Primer type, and the notes are in Brevier. 
The aim has been to make it a work for the scholar, one that he may 


peruse with pleasure and profit, and such as may prove a lasting 
benefit to the Church everywhere, and especially among the English- 
speaking nations, who so much need it at this crisis in their history, 
on which hangs their future fate, when so many of their clergy, 
It will have 
a tendency to keep them in the path of sound faith and to save 
This 


who know them not, are idolatrizing or infidelizing. 


them from bringing a curse on themselves and tlieir people. 
volume on Nicaea, with the forematter, makes about 500 pages. 


The next volumes to be issued will, if God will, be the two or 
three of the Third Ecumenical Council, held at Ephesus, A. D. 431. 
They contain the first and only translation of the entire Minutes and 
Decisions ever made into English. ‘The first volume will be issued 
as soon as the means are furnished. Subscriptions at $3 a volume are 
Pay on delivery of 


desired. Send in name and full address. 


the volume. 


LIST OF WORKS OF THIS SET AND THEIR PRESENT STATE. 


COUNCIL. VOLUME. SUBJECT MATTER. ITS STATE, 
Nicaea, A. D. Vol. I. The Undisputed Remains of Nicaea Published. 
325. 
Nicaea, A. D. Vol. II. The Disputed Remains, and the Spurious, All of it can be 
325. | Notes on the Genuine Canons; and an Ac- | made ready in a 
count of the Defence by Carthage in centu-/ year. Part of it 
ties V. and VI. of its Rights, by the Canons of | is now ready. 
Nicaea, against the attempt of Rome to get 
Appellate Jurisdiction there. 
| 
Nicaea, A.D, Vole ΤΙ» A Dissertation on the words in the Anathe- Nearly ready, 
325. ma at the end of the Nicene Creed, ‘The Uni- ΟΥ̓ Teady for the 
versal Church anathematizes those who say | PTESs. 
thai * * * * the SonofGod * * * was 
not before He was born.’ It contains all the 
| testimonies of Ante-Nicene Christian Writers 
yet extant, except some of Origen, on the 
question whether the consubstantial and co- 
eternal Logos of the Father was born out of 
Him eternally or only just before the Worlds 
were made, with the difference between the 


SUBJECT MATTER, 


Alexandrian School and the resi of the Church 
on τέ. Knough of Origen will be mentioned 
toshow his mind on that matter. On Ter- 
tullian’s testimony, and perhaps on one or 
two others, it is hoped that this volume will 
be fuller than even Bishop Bull’s great De- 
Sence of the Nicene Faith. 


ITS STATE. 


Nearly ready, 


| or ready for the 


press. 


A Dissertation on the Question Whether 
God the Father has a Body or not, containing 
passages from ancient Christian Writers on 
that theme, which show how they differed. 
This, or another volume on Nicaea, will con- 
tain a Dissertion on the question Whether the 
Apostles realiy made the Creed which ts now 
commonly called the Apostles, with a Review 
of a writing of Natalis Alexander on that 
point; with extracts from Fathers, etc. 


COUNCIL. VOLUME. 

Nicaea, A. D. Vol. 111. 
325- 

Nicaea, A. D. Vol. IV., 
325, and per- 

| haps V- 

Nicaea, A.D. V., per- 
325. haps. 

I. Constanti- se 
nople, A. D. 381. 

Ephesus, A. I., 11. and 
D. 431. perhaps III 

Ephesus, A. IV. 
D. 431. 


This, or another volume, will contain a 
work on the Ante-Nicene Lecal Creeds, Ques- 
tions in the Ante-Baptismal Offices, and Dec- 
trinal Statements. 


Partly ready. 


Nearly ready 


About ready. 


All the Remains of the Second Ecumenical 
Synod in Greek and English; with an account 
of the use of its Creed in Baptismal and 
Eucharistic Offices, etc. 


All the Minutes, Decisions, Canons, etc., of 
the Third Ecumenical Council; the Decisions 
and Canons in Greek and English; the only 
English translation of all of Ephesus ever 


made. 


A Dissertation onthe Difference between St. 
Cyril of Alexandria and the Orthodox on the 
one hand, and the Heresiarch Nestorius and 
his partisans on the other, on the Eucharist 
as it affects the question of the real or actual 
presence of Christ’s Divinity and Humanity 
on the Holy Table, and the actual eating of 
His flesh there. Important passages of St. 
Cyril, as well as of Nestorius, are there given, 
with one of the Nestorian Theodoret relied | 
on by the ill-read and idolatrous Keble to | 
prove his heresy of Eucharistic Adoration 
This work is most important at this time as 
showing the doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexan- | 
dria and the Third Ecumenical Council on | 
the Lord’s Supper as against Nestorian and 
koman error, after so much has been written | 


by the heresiarchs Keble and Pusey against it. 


Nearly ready. 


Ready for the 
press. 


Most of it now 
ready. 


SUBJECT MATTER. 


ITS STATE. 


A Dissertation on the doctrine of St. Cyril 
of Alexandria on Economic Appropriation 
which was approved by the Third Synod. 

A Dissertation on the doctrine of the Third 
Council and the Fifth as to the worship of 
Christ’s Humanity specifically, and the views 
of their teachers Athanasius and Cyril of Alex- 
andria on it; with quotations from them and 
another on that theme. 


A Dissertation as to the real author of the 
alleged Y Books of Cyril of Alexandria 
Against Julian the Apostate, which is pagan- 
izing in its present form in places. 


Partly ready. 


About ready for 


the press. 


A Dissertation on the differences between 
St. Theophilus of Alexandria and St. Cyril, 
his successor, on the one side, and John, after- 
wards called Chrysostom, on the other. Other 
matter on Cyril will be added. 


Partly ready. 


COUNCIL. VOLUME. 

Ephesus, A. IV., per- 
Ὁ. 431. | haps. 

Ephesus, A. IV., per- 
D. 431. haps. 

Ephesus, A. Vin DIEh- 
D. 431. haps. 

Chalcedon. ἘΣΠ ΤΙΣ 

and per- 
haps IV. 

II. Constanti- J. and II. 
nople, A.D. 553. 

III. Constan- 1 a O0 Geo 0 1 
tinople, A. ἢ. πᾶ per- 
680. haps IV. 

uae NAG see There will 
menical Coun- ae 
cilsintheGreek P y 

a be about 8 
Original. 


or τὸ vol- 
umes. 


The entire Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical 
Council translated into English; with the Defi- 
nition, Normal Epistles read in it, and the 
Canons, in Greek. 

One of these volumes of Chalcedon will 
contain also a Dissertation on the Authority 
of the Canons of the first four Keumenical 
Synods; and as to what Canons were approved 
in Canon I. of Chalcedon. 


All the Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Coun- 
cil, including its famous Definition and all 
its other Remains. The Definition will be 
given in Greek and English. 


The Minutes 
are begun, and 
the Definition, 
Normal Epistles 
and Canons are 
finished. 


The Definition 
translated; the 
Acts begun. 


All the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Coun- 
cil, including its Definition and the Epistle of 
Pope Agatho, a Report mentioned in the De- 
finition and allits other Remains. The Defi- 
nition will be given in Greek and in English, 
The groundwork and nearly all the transla- 
tion of Pope Agatho’s Epistle is the work of 
the learned Greek scholar, now deceased, Rev. 
Marcus F. Hyde, Professor of Greek in Bur- 
lington College, New Jersey, which he under- 
took, years ago, at the request of the editor. 


A critical edition of the Six Ecumenical 
Councils in the Greek original where it is ex- 
tant, with the various le¢tions where the texts 
differ; with the old Latin translations where 
they exist, with Prolegomena and Notes. 


The Definition, 
Epistle of Agatho 
and the Report 
are finished; 
the Minutes are 
begun. 


This will be be- 
gun as soon as 
the money ne- 
cessary to pay the 
expense of secur- 
ing and compar- 
ing texts, and 
publishing, are 
given to us. 


SCRIPTURE AND CHURCH AUTHORITY FOR THE SIX 
COUNCILS OF THE WHOLE CHURCH. 


SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY FOR THEM. 


Matt. XVIII., 17; ‘‘If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee 
as a heathen man and a publican.”’ 

I Tim. III., 15, ‘‘ The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of 
the truth.”’ 


CHURCH AUTHORITY. 


How they are respected among the mass of those who claim to be Christians, 


te 


AMONG THE REFORMED COMMUNIONS. 
1. Zhe Votce of THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION 7207 them. 


“(THOSE SIX COUNCILS WHICH WERE ALLOWED AND RECEIVED OF ALL 
MEN,”’ (The Second Part of the Church of England Homily Against Peril of 
Idolatry which is in that Book of Homilies of which the Thirty-Fifth Article 
teaches that it ‘‘ doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for 
these times.’’) 

2. The AMERICAN PRESBYTERIANS on the Stax Ecumenical Councils, 


Pius the Ninth, Bishop of Rome, in an Encyclical Letter dated Sept. 13, 
1868, invited ‘‘all Protestants’’ to join the Roman Communion at the Vatican 
Council to be held A. D. 1869. 

“The two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States of America’’ by their Moderators, M. W. Jacobus and Ph. H. Fowler, 
replied in 1869, and among other things said, with reference to their refusal to 
participate in that Council of the Vatican, which began soon after, on Dec. 8, 
1869, as follows: 

(ΤΕ is not because we reject any article of the Catholic Faith. We are not 
heretics * * * * . We regard as consistent with Scripture the doéirinal 
decisions of the first Six Ecumenical Councils, and because of that consistency 
we receive those decisions as expressing our own faith. We believe the doctrines 
of the Trinity and Person of Christ, as those do¢trines are set forth by the 
Council of Nice, A. D. 325; by that of Chalcedon, A. D. 451; and by that of Con- 
stantinople, A. D. 680.’ Then follows an excellent summing up on the 
Trinity and on the Incarnation and Christ's sole Mediatorship, which agrees 
with the Six Synods, and is found on page 5 below. Then they speak well of 
the Third Ecumenical Council. Below they condemn heresies condemned by 
necessary implication by the Six Councils; that is, Transubstantiation, the 
Roman doé¢trine of the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Adoration of the Host, the Wor- 
ship of the Virgin Mary, the Invocation of Saints, and the Worship of Images; 
and, towards the end, well say, : 


“Loyalty to Christ, obedience to the Holy Scriptures, consistent respect for 
the early counci!s of the Church, and the firm belief that pure religion is the 
foundation of ail human society, compel us to withdraw from fellowship with 
the Church of Rome.’’ 

The utterances of the CONTINENTAL REFORMED, ¢hat is, CONTINENTAL 
PRESBYTERIANS, as well as of the LUTHERANS. 

The Declaration of Thorn approves the two Ecumenical Creeds, and the 
Confessions of the Six Ecumenical Councils. See pages 156, 157 below. 


3. As to the views of the LUTHERANS on the Doctrines of the Six Ecu- 
mentical Councils, see further, below, pages 128 to 131. 


AMONG THE UNREFORMED COMMUNIONS. 
iG 


How the GREEK CHURCH commemorates them. 


“Be mindful, O, Lord * * * * of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Six 
Synods, the First of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Holy Fathers in Nicaea; 
the Second of the One Hundred and Fifty in Constantincple; the Third of the 
Two Hundred in Ephesus; the Fourth of the Six Hundred and Thirty in Chal- 
cedon,’’ etc., (Diptychs in the Messina Manuscript, of A. D. 984, of the Greek 
Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem, in Assemani’s Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiae 
Universae. ) 

ΤΙ: 
Flow the BISHOPS OF ROME formerly received them. 


In the /rdiculum Pontificis or Profession of Faith of a Roman Pontiff after 
A. D. 680, the date of the Cixth Ecumenical Council, and during Century VIJIL., 
those Bishops swore as follows: 

(ΕἸ WILL, KEEP UNMUTILATED, TO A SINGLE LONG MARK OVER A VOWEL, 
the holy Universal Councils also the Nicaean, the Constantinopolitan, the first 
Ephesian, the Chalcedonian, and the second Constantinopolitan, which was cel- 
ebrated in the times of Justinian, a prince of pious memory. And together with 
them, and with equal honor and veneration, I promise to keep, TO THE VERY 
MARROW AND FULLY, the holy Sixth Council which lately assembled in the time 
of Constantine, a prince of pious memory, and of Agatho, my apostolic prede- 
cessor, and I promise in very truth to proclaim what they have proclaimed, and 
with mouth and heart to condemn what they have condemned. Byt if anything 
shall arise against Canonical Discipline, I promise to amend it, and to GUARD 
THE SACRED CANONS, aud the constitutions of our Pontiffs; as DIvINE AND 
CELESTIAL MANDATES.”’ 

The Second Profession of Faith of a Bishop of Rome in the end of Century 
VII. andin Century VIII., as given in the Daily Book of the Roman Pontiffs, 
after a full and excellent confession of doctrine, reads thus: 

‘‘Wherefore, whomsoever or whatsoever the holy Six Universal Councils 
have cast off, we also smite with a like condemnation of anathema. But whom- 
soever or whatsoever the same Six Holy Councils received, we, as sharers of the 
right faith, receive, and, with the same reverence, venerate with mouth and 
heart.”’ 

This language is general and absolute. It excepts nothing. 


AN APPEAL TO SCHOLARS AND TO ALL LOVERS OF 
CHRISTIAN LEARNING, FOR CONTRIBUTIONS 
ΠΟ ΕΠ FUND sO) CPUBLISE “Er Siac 
BCUMENICAL COUNCILS, THAT IS 


I. Nicaea, A. D. 325. 

II. I. Constantinople, A. D. 381. 
III. Ephesus, A. D. 431. 
IV.. Chalcedon; A. D: 451. 

V. II. Constantinople, A. D. 553. 
VI. III. Constantinople, A. Ὁ. 680. 


A FEW FACTS AS TO THE GREAT IMPORTANCE AND VALUE OF 
THESE “COUNCILS: 


(A). They are the only Synods of the whole Church East and West before 
its division in the ninth century. 

(B). As such Christ commands us to hear them on pain of being regarded 
“as a heathen man and a publican.’ He binds in heaven every heretic bound 
by them on earth, and he looses in heaven every one loosed by them on earth 
(Matt. XVIII, 17, 18). Their utterances are the sole Decisions of that Universal 
“Church of the living God” which an inspired Apostle terms ‘“‘/he pillar and 
ground of the truth’? (I. Tim. 1Π1., 15). And Ecclesiastical History shows that 
by those utterances it has been such against the creature-serving deniers of the 
Divinity of the Logos, and of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, against the Man- 
worshipper (ἀνθρωπολάτρης) Nestorius, against Eutyches the denier of Christ’s 
humanity, who in fact worshipped it as God, against the Monothelite heretic, 
Honorius, Bishop of Rome, and against other One-Willites who denied that the 
Son possesses a whole humanity. 

(C). Orthodox Christendom, East and West, was once united on the basis 
of those Six Synods, and no union among the sundered parts of Christendom is 
at all feasible which rejects any one of them. 

To this very hour the formularies of different parts of professing Christen- 
dom profess respect for them. The Greeks profess to receive them in their 
entirety. The Latins profess to receive them with the exception of a few of 
their Canons. The Anglican communion in the Second Part of its Homily 
against Peril of Idolatry speaks of them as ‘‘ those Six Councils which were 
allowed and received of all men.’ Of the Presbyterian utterances, the Declara- 
tion of Thorn approves their Confessions, and the American Presbyterians in 
their reply to Pius the Ninth, Bishop of Rome, in A. D. 1869, profess to receive 
their doctrinal decisions, as follows: ; 

“We regard as consistent with Scripture the doétrinal decisions of the first 
Sta Ecumenical Councils; and because of that consistency we receive those 

' decisions as expressing our own faith.” 

And Lutheran theologians were among those who approved the Declaration 

of Thorn. . 


And the formularies of all the Reformed Communions follow them, to a 
great extent, on such themes as the Trinity, the Atonement by Christ's saving 
blood, the fallibility of the Bishop of Rome, and the sin of worshipping any- 
thing but God. 


(D). A translation of them is necessary as a guide to Church and State, as 
to the course to be pursued by both in the way of duty to God and man, and as to 
the relations which ought to exist in a Christian state between God's ministers 
im spiritual things, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and His ministers in 
mere worldly non-religious things, the civil and military powers (Rom. XIII., 
1-8). For during their time, A. D. 325-680 Christianity was supreme, and as 
being the spiritual, and therefore the higher power, guided the secular, and hence 
the lower power, and brought to pass in Christendom a foretype and foretaste of 
that blessed state on earth for which every truly Christian soul yearns, when the 
secular power shall be absorbed into the spiritual, in the one Person of Christ, 
the Head and Source of both, when ‘‘¢the Aingdoms of this world’ shall have 
‘‘ become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ’? (Rev. XI., 15), ‘‘when 
Fle shall have put down all rule and all authority and power,’’ when He shall 
have ‘‘put all enemies under His feet’? (1. Cor. XV., 24, 25), including our cur- 
rupt low politicians, grog-shop aldermen, such for instance as now rule New 
York City, and help Satan against Christ by leaving open, gambling hells, 
hundreds of whore houses, and thousands of grog shops to tempt and ruin our 
youth, to waste their substance, and to send them to early graves and to hell; all 
creature-worshipping rulers, all Mohammedan rulers; and allunbelieving Jewish 
legislators, who are now, alas, by an accursed and Christ-forbidden false liber- 
alism allowed in a Christian land to judge Christians who are to judge the world, 
and even angels (I. Cor. VI., 1-8), and that right against the plain prohibition 
of Holy Writ (1. Cor. VI., 1-8). For a conne¢tion of Church and state close, 
blessed, and undivided is coming when, as we read in Revelations XX., 1-8, 
Christ shall do away the power of Satan for a thousand years, and shall reign 
during that long period on this earth with His Apostles, the heads of His Uni- 
versal Episcopate, and the sound Bishops who have taught His faith, and the 
martyrs who witnessed for him with their blood against unbelieving Judaism and 
against creature-invoking and image-worshipping Paganism, and with other 
saints of His (Rev. XX., 1-8; Matt. XIX., 28). 


The nearest approach to the reign of Christ on earth in ancient times was 
during those times in the periods A. D. 325-680, when the Church was allowed 
by the imperial powers to govern herself by her own laws, the Canons, when 
her Bishops exercised without hindrance their canonical and New Testament 
power over both spiritualities and her own temporalities, and faithful monarchs, 
like Constantine the Great, Theodosius the Great, and Marcian, aided and served 
her; who in protecting and fostering true religion and in crushing error, followed 
in the steps of the good Kings, David, Hezekiah and Josiah, and so far made 
Christ’s faith to reign on earth ; and so Church and State were blessed and pros- 
pered. The nearest to that state of things in England was when Edward VI., 
and Elizabeth reigned there; when the Orthodox who obeyed the law to 
serve God alone were given all power in Church and State, and images, formerly 
worshipped, were destroyed, and creature-worship was forbidden and crushed, 
and Orthodox Bishops ruled their clergy and people according to Christ’s Gospel, 


and in the main, according to the faith of ‘‘ those Sta Councils which were allowed 
and received of all men,” as the Second Part of their Homily Against Peril of 
Idolatry terms them. Therefore was England blessed, the Invincible Armada 
of idolatrous Spain against her scattered and largely destroyed by God; and the 
little one has become a thousand, and the small one a strong nation, for the 
Lord has hastened it in his time (Isaiah I/X., 22); so that a realm which αἴ 
Bloody Mary’s death had only about 4,000,000 of subjects and only about 100,000 
square miles, has now more than 300,000,000 subjects, and about 9,000,000 
square miles of land, that is about one-fifth or one-sixth of the earth’s population 
and about one-sixth of its surface. So that true religion exalteth a nation now 
as it did in David’s and in Hezekiah’s day. So richly blessed in their results are 
the Scriptural dodtrines of the Six Councils of which the Reformers speak so 
well above, and which they strove to follow, though some parts of them were 
not so well known then as how. But to-day the bulk of the clergy do not know 
them, and therefore they are going astray, some to idolatry, others to infidelity ; 
and the pastors and people are following the God-forbidden infidel theories 
which by admitting unbelieving Jews, Anarchists, Nihilists, Socialists, idolatrous 
Romanists, and Christianity-persecuting Mohammedans to come among us, to 
be admitted to our suffrage, and so to rule us in Church and State, have resulted 
in a silly attempt to mix irreconcilable elements, the good and the bad together, 
have degraded the good to the level of the bad, have destroyed the soleness of the 
rule of Orthodoxy and virtue, and have in effect insulted both, exalted evil and 
have dethroned Christ in our land, aye, have taken away the canonical control of 
the spiritualities and temporalities of the Church from the Bishops and put them 
into the hands of laymen and laywomen and often into the hands of non-commu- 
nicants,and even into the hands of unbaptized persons; so that they rule the Bish- 
ops and clergy and take away their freedom to proclaim God’s message and enslave 
them, and hinder all discipline. And the State as well as the Church is demor- 
alized and controlled by such Anti-Six Councils theories of the infidel Tom Jeffer- 
son and of our unbelieving and harmful and corrupting press. And the secret 
of the prevalence of his Anti-Christian theories which forbid any national sup- 
port of Christianity and omit any mention of God in our very defective coustitu- 
tion, and put the Church under the heels of the mere worldly unchristian secular 
power, and force their own heresies as to the control of Church temporalities 
on the Church contrary to its Ecumenical Canons, is the prevalence of endless 
heresies and schisms among us, occasioned by our ignorance of the Decisions of 
the Whole Church in the VI. Councils, and our popular disregard of them 


A translation of them is especially necessary at this time when there 
is so much of doubt and of questioning and of agitation and strife regarding 
religion and the proper relations of Church and State in English-speak- 
ing Christendom; most of which has arisen from ignorance of them, misrep- 
resentation of them, aye, downright falsehoods regarding their decisions, and 
contempt forthem based on such lies. ‘The consequences of such ignorance and 
disregard concerning them are appalling, for the result is contempt for all 
Church Authority, and the spread of damnable heresies such as denial of the 
Trinity and of Christ’s Divinity, and of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures; 
the heresy of creature-worship and of image-worship, of infidelity, and of relig- 
ious anarchy. Take the results of ignorance of them in the Church of England 


for an example. Pusey, Newman, and Keble, seeing the English Church to ie 
endangered by the admission of Romish idolaters and of Anti-Episcopalian 
Protestants to Parliament to share the control of its affairs, started what has 
been termed the Oa/ord Movement; but alas! were utterly ignorant of some of 
their chief decisions, and especially of those against all forms of religious ser- 
vice to creatures by invocation, bowing, or otherwise, and against all image- 
worship and against all Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation errors and 
their idolatrous sequences. So while denouncing it as absurd for each ignor- 
amus to interpret the Bible according to his private fancy, they fell into the 
worse absurdity of interpreting it and the Fathers and early Christian writers 
by their own private fancies—right against the final and Holy-Ghost-aided and 
irreversible decisions of the Six God-led Ecumenical Councils. For they all fell 
into creature-worship abhorred of God and condemned by them, started afresh 
the Nestorian Theodoret’s heresy on the Eucharist which St. Cyril of Alexan- 
dria well opposed and was approved in effect for so doing by the Third Synod, 
led or sent hundreds of the Anglican clergy and thousands of Anglican laics to 
the idolatrous Roman Communion, brought the rest of the Anglican clergy and 
the Church of England itself into suspicion of idolatrizing and Romanizing, a 
suspicion deserved and just in the case of hundreds of them, largely injured 
its once great power as a guide and support to the English people in the State to 
make their policy Christian, Protestant, and moral, and gave occasion to 
strengthen the idolatrous and degrading forces of Rome on the one hand, and 
of blasphemous population-depleting Bradlaughism, infidelity, and anarchy on 
the other. So that the state of England is to-day poor enough, and its punish- 
ment in the loss of India or worse not far distant. A less general backsliding 
toward Romish creature-invocation, altar-worship, and image-worship, in Arch- 
bishop Laud’s days brought God’s curse in the form of the Cromwellian 
Scourge on Church and State, reddened the fields of England with the blood of 
its own sons shed in mutual slaughters, disestablished the Church, beggared its 
clergy, and brought to the block Laud himself, who had befouled the churches 
by reintroducing into them again images of jealousy which provoke the Jealous 
God to Jealousy (Exodus XX., 2-7; Jeremiah VII., 17-21; Psalm LXXVIIL., 58, 
éte.; Ezekiel WIIL., (3, 5, 10; I. Kings XIV., 22; 23, ete.): aye, that backsliding 
into those sins brought to the block King Charles I. also, who had sinned 
by marrying, contrary to the law of God, an idolatrous wife, Henrietta of 
France, and allowing her to have idolatrous priests about her, to flaunt their 
paganism in the eyes of his Orthodox people, and so to influence his sons 
that both were at heart idolaters, and evil Kings, and so died, and when 
his line was driven justly from the throne, the descendants of the last one, 
James II., by their successive invasions and stirrings up of rebellions, kept the 
British Islands in disquiet and agitation, and brought on them for a long period 
internecine quarrels, divisions, conflicts, slaughters, deaths, and confiscations, 
till the last of the idolatrous line died a Cardinal of Rome and ended his family 
and his life together. Moreover, as the backsliding into Romish paganizing is 
greater in the Anglican Communion in our day than it was then, it may deser- 
vedly expect a greater punishment than came then, unless its repentance be 
speedy and its reform thorough and the Churches be cleansed and purified 
again and all the idolatrous clergy be deposed, and those of them who are dead, 
and especially, Pusey, Keble and Newman, be anathematized. 


This series, if published, by the authority of the Ecumenically approve | 
utterances in them will help on those pious ends, and will repay ten thousand 
fold in blessings the comparatively small amounts asked, and given by Orthodox 
servants of Christ to publish them. 


On the Continent of.Europe, ignorance of the Six Synods and disregard for 
them among the Presbyterians (there called Reformed), and among the Luther- 
ans, has resulted in a large spread among them of Socinianism, Arianism, and 
neglect of the best things in their own Formularies, which had been incor- 
porated into them from the Six Ecumenical Councils. 


And in our own country, the results of ignorance of the Six Synods are 
130 different Denominations, and an endless number of schisms and heresies, 
and quarrels extended to almost every town, and to family after family, so 
that we often have four rival places of worship where we can support only 
one, the confusing and bewildering of souls, and the weakening of Pro- 
testantism, the admission of foreign-born creature-servers and unbelieving 
Jews, and Nihilists and Anarchists to a share in governing a Christian Re- 
formed people, and the spread of error and the weakening among us of 
that righteousness which alone exalteth a nation and the consequent demor- 
alizing of the State, so that we have one of the most extravagant and 
corrupt General Governments on the face of the earth. Indeed, our divorce 
laws are often positively Anti-Christian. And the Tweedism and corruption 
of some of our cities ruled by the rabble and the low political newspaper is 
a burning shame, so that as a nation, though nominally professing the Christian 
faith, we have deposed Christ, to whom all power justly belongs in heaven and 
earth, for they have been given Him by His Father (Matt. XXVIII, 18), and 
whose laws are obligatory on us all to the exclusion of all which oppose them, 
and we have downed intelligent Christian men and their laws and have, like 
idiots and criminals, admitted to their places those elected by degraded Romish 
idolaters from Ireland, or Germany, or Italy, or Poland, or Bohemia, or Turkey in 
Asia, or Canada, many of whom can not read, whose fate is hopeless in their 
idolatry (Rev. XXI., 8), or by Christianity-hating and Christ-rejecting, ignorant ~ 
and lying and cheating Russian Talmudical Jews who belong to what St. John 
calls ‘‘ the Synagogue of Satan,’’ and who by Christian law can not be saved 
(Mark XVI., 16; John III, 36; Rev. XXI., 8, etc.); so that we are ruled in our 
own land, in our largest city, New York, and elsewhere, by alietis to our race 
and to our religion and to God’s laws; and we have even given them practically 
the casting vote in our National, and, in places, in our State elections, so that we 
have practically become their servants and they our masters, no matter how 
ignorant or vicious or Christ-hating they are. The Christ-rejecting hordes of 
Polish Jews who have been a curse in every land where they have ever been 
since they were cast off by Christ, and who have ruined the peasantry and busi- 
ness men of parts of Germany, Russia, Poland, and Roumania, and whom 
Christian governments wish to get rid of in justice to their own people and to 
induce to return to Palestine, which is their country and is now open to them, 
will not go thither, but taking advantage of our loose and idiotic laws which are 
traitorous to the best interests of our own Christian American people, come here 
by the hundred thousand, and after going through the farce of renouncing not 
their own Jewish nationality, but a nationality which was never theirs truly, 


such as Russia, Austria, etc., become citizens equal im every right to ourselves 

who were born here, get our houses and lands into their own hands, make some 

of us mere tenants at their will, become our lawyers, and in some cases even our 

law-makers and judges, as in New York City and State now; get, through our 

folly, the trade of our Christian merchants who help to support our Churches, 

though Christian law tells us to do good ‘especially unto them who are of the 

household of faith’’ (Galat. VI., 10), drive them out of business and to poverty, ἡ 
and use the wealth gotten from our Christian people to support the synagogue 

which opposes Christ and his religion. For instance, withig the last forty years 

they have driven out the old American merchants from Broadway and made it 

a foreign, alien, Jewish street, and largely control the dry goods trade of New 

York City. So that they are absorbing our wealth, for they hang together 

against us, and one has said that they would soon have the importing trade of 
the United States in their hands. Some of our papers are owned by them and 

others employ Jewish writers, and they exert a baleful influence against us, and 

against our religion, for they are hostile to Christ and Christianity. 


Besides, the partisans of that slaughtering Creed of theimpostor Mohammed, 
whose Koran proclaims war against us and orders its votaries to kill us or to 
reduce us to pay tribute to them, and to become their subjects, taking advantage 
of our accursed false liberalism which permits them, have set up proselyting estab- 
lishments in England, and threaten us here. And the Jew, who in Spain, as 
Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire shows, ungratefully united 
with them against the Spaniard who had suffered his evil presence for centuries, 
will unite with them here when it becomes his interest to do so, if we do not 
compel him to return to his own country, which is now open to him, as Egypt, 
near it, also is. 

And we are getting the most superstitions and ignorant populations of the 
Kast, and making them the equals in governing our country, of our own intelli- 
gent native born American people. We are said, for instance, to have already 
about 10,000 of those bigoted and idolatrous Syrian Papists, formerly Monothe- 
lites, the Maronites, the chief partisans of Rome in the East, and they and such 
are pouring in fast upon us to curse us. And so the blood-poisoning of the 
national and social body politic goes on. 


Besides we have vast numbers of low down debased, ignorant and supersti- 
tions and bigoted Romish Poles, Lithuanians, Bohemians, Canadian French, 
and Italians, who are alien to us in language, race and religion, who deem us 
heretics, and some of them would deprive us of the right to rule our own country 
if they had the power, and in places they do rule us even now. Oh! the folly of 
giving them the suffrage in our land, not theirs, and that power with it. We 
have degraded the suffrage and ourselves at the same time, and ruined our 
country to please our wind-bag politicians and editors. 

We have been sadly remiss in neglecting religious unity in truth. But con- 
sider the trouble constantly made for Church and State by a Romish minority 
in Germany, Ireland, and Canada, and by Manichaeans and by Mohammedans 
when they once got a foothold in the Middle Ages in a Christian land, and by 
infidel Communists in France, and you will see that few curses can be greater 
than disunity in religion, and that religous unity is the guard of national unity. 
Christianity-hating Jews, Mohammedans, and creature-worshipping Romanists, 


if we do not guard against it, will come into our heritage, make marriages with 
us, introduce and spread their errors among us, pervert the sons and daughters 
of our people, as indeed they often have, secure through the demagogueism of our 
good-for-nothing politicians a right to share the government of our Municipal and 
State and National affairs with us, and become to us what Joshna said the 
Canaanites would be to the Israelites if they intermarried with them. ‘ 7hey 
shall be,” said he, “snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and 
thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the Lord your 
God hath given you.’’ (Joshua XXIII., 13). They are such to us now in our 
great cities. Witness Americans driven out of business by foreign Jews, New 
York City government in the hands of Romanists, and the 90 murders by the 
Italian Mafia in New Orleans. 


Against those terrible evils the Bishops and the Clergy must lead now, as 
they always have. The politicians and demagogues who wish votes and place 
aud money will not. The spiritual forces are always chief in saving and lifting 
the individual, the family and the nation. 


With all the faults of the two corrupt Churches of the Middle Ages, each of 
them at least unified the Christian nations under it and held them up against 
Mohammedanism and Manichaeism, till the Reformation came which gave the 
Christians victory against them. It was the Reformation and the Reformed 
Church in England which saved and lifted the English people and made the 
Anglo-Saxons powerful. And nothing but a sound Christianity, sober, without 
paganizing and without idolatrizing, and on the basis of the Six Synods of the 
whole church can save us from Satan’s chief ally, the false liberalism which 
spurns Christian faith and Christian practice, and gives the Devil as much freedom 
in a Christian State, aye, often more freedom and sway, than Christ himself. We 
can not look to the press. It is corrupt, and largely Anti-Christian, and falsely 
liberal. We must look to Christ’s Gospel and to His Sound Church which He 
commands us to hear. 


Moreover, another great peril may soon assail us, as the Romish Centre 
party in the German Parliament assails the Reformed in Germany and as the 
Irish Pope’s Brass Band under Parnell, etc., assails the Faith in the British 
Parliament, forsome Romish editors are trying to weld all the foreign Romish 
elements among us into a so-called Catholic Party, into one mass to rule and 
dominate us in our own land which has been built up by our own faith. And 
yet we are divided, split up into so many sects that we are not in a fit position to 
defend ourselves in our own home. We must then unite to save our nation and 
the Reformed faith which has elevated us and made us what we are; and to do 
so, we must return to the utterances of the Holy-Ghost-led Six Synods of the Chris- 
tian worldand manage Church and State in accordance with them, not in accord- 
ance with the theories of low pot-house Politicians and Infidels and Radicals and 
Romanists, and falsely-styled Liberals, who have substituted sometimes for Chris- 
tian statesmanship and the sway of religion and virtue and intelligence, the sway 
of irreligion and vice and ignorance and superstition, and who have already wreck- 
ed so many of our city governments, and made them the scorn of thinking men 
and their plague and curse, and clear and permanent proofs of the incapacity of 
such errorists to rule. Wemust, in order to rally our disordered and disorganized 
forces to resist them, have a centre of Christian faith and order, and that exists 


in the Six Synods of the whole church alone. To talk of uniting around any 
other is all bosh and impracticable stuff. 

(KE). As to our aims and needs: 

We wish to publish about twelve or more volumes of translations of every- 
thing of the Six Ecumenical Councils, including all their ACs, or Minutes, as we 
would call them; including also, of course, all their Decisions on Doé¢trine, Dis- 
cipline and Rite; in brief, everything of them. Not one tenth part of the whole 
has been translated into English before. 

All the Decisions will be given both in Greek and English. Explanatory 
passages from the Orthodox Champions and from the Heretics will be given 
also, some parts of them in Greek or Latin. ΑἸ] this will make the work more 
costly. Moreover, we need money to send circulars of it to, perhaps 100,000 or 
200,000 clergy of different creeds on both sides of the water, that they may 
know of it and may have an opportunity to subscribe and to be influenced for 
good by these volumes. We need money to pay translators and workers. We 
need money to print and bind and to send out books with, and to pay office 
hire with. We need money to pay men to travel over Europe and the East to 
search for the different readings and best texts, that we may publish a critical 
edition of the original Greek of the VI. Councils, and the oldest Latin translations. 

The income from the sales has thus far paid only about one-third of the 
total cost of publishing alone, counting not a cent for the translator. So we 
need at least $4,000 a year. We expect to get out one or two volumes every 
twelve months. Each volume of the translations will be delivered to the sub- 
scribers for $3, to others at $4. If educated men do not make this a special 
object of their charities and help us, the volumes can not appear ; for only they 
can appreciate its absolute necessity and vast profit for Church and State. 


LIST OF WORKS OF THIS SET AND THEIR PRESENT STATE. 


COUNCIL. VOLUME. SUBJECT MATTER. ITS STATE. 
Nicaea, A. D. Vol. I. The Undisputed Remains of Nicaea | Published. 
325. 
Nicaea, ἃ. Ὁ. Vol. II. The Disputed Remains, and the Spurious. All of it can be 
325. Notes. on the Genuine Canons; and an Ac- | made ready in a 
count of the Defence by Carthage in centu- year. Part of it 
ries V. and VI. of its Rights, by the Canons of | is now ready. 
Nicaea, against the attempt of Rome to get 
Appellate Jurisdiction there. 
Nicaea, A.D.| Vol. III. A Dissertation on the words in the Anathe- Nearly ready, 
325. ma at the end of the Nicene Creed, ‘‘ The Unz- | OT ready for the 
versal Church anathematizes those who say | PTess. 
that ti ποῖα; the Sow ofiGod. = (= -s= was. 
not before He was born.’’ Τί contains all the 
testimonies of Ante-Nicene Christian Writers 
yet extant, except some of Origen, on the 
question whether the consubstantial and co- 
eternal Logos of the Father was born out of 
Him eternally or only just before the Worlds 


were made, withthe difference between the 


“πᾳὦΨᾳοσοοο......--΄΄΄οπης »,;“λ “ἝἜὁσοι,ο,οντΤ“““6σθ6 τ|ΡὖὉ ττἨττ“’ῦὃ τ ττ----- - 


SUBJECT MATTER, 


Alexandrian School and the vest of the Church 
Enough of Origen will be mentioned 
On Ter- 
tullian’s testimony, and perhaps on one or 
two others, it is hoped that this volume will 
be fuller than even Bishop Bull’s great De- 


A Dissertation on the Question Whether 
God the Father has a Body or not, containing 
passages from ancient Christian Writers on 
that theme, which show how they differed. 
This, or another volume on Nicaea, will con- 
tain a Dissertion on the question Whether the 
Apostles really made the Creed which is now 
commonly called the Apostle’s. with a Review 
of a writing of Natalis Alexander on that 


This, or another volume, will contain a 
work on the Ante-Nicene Local Creeds, Ques- 
tions in the Ante-Baptismal Offices, and Doc- 


ITS STATE. 


Nearly ready, 
or ready for the 
press. 


Partly ready. 


Nearly ready 


About ready. 


All the Remains of the Second Ecumenical 
Synod in Greek and English; with an account 
of the use of its Creed in Baptismal and 


All the Minutes, Decisions, Canons, etc., of 
the Third Kcumenical Council; the Decisions 
and Canons in Greek and English; the only 
English translation of all of Ephesus ever 


A Dissertation onthe Difference between St. 
Cyril of Alexandria and the Orthodox on the 
one hand, and the Heresiarch Nestorius and 
his partisans on the other, on the Eucharist 
as it affects the question of the real or actual 
presence of Christ’s Divinity and Humanity 
on the Holy Table, and the actual eating of 
Important passages of St. 
Cyril, as well as of Nestorius, are there given, 


COUNCIL, VOLUME, 
Nicaea, A. D. Vol. III. 
325. on τέ. 
ἴο 5πονν his mind on that matter. 
Sence of the Nicene Fatth,. 
Nicaea, A. Ὁ. Vol. IV., 
325, and per- 
haps V- 
point; with extracts from Fathers, etc. 
Nicaea, A. Ὁ. V., per- 
325. haps. 
trinal Statements. 
I. Constanti- Te 
nople, A. D.381. 
Eucharistic Offices, ete. 
Ephesus, A. J., ἘΠ. ται 
D. 431. perhaps III 
made. 
Ephesus, A. IV. 
D. 431. 
His flesh there. 
° 


with one of the Nestorian Theodoret relied 
on by the ill-read and idolatrous Keble to 
prove his heresy of Eucharistic Adoration. 
This work is most important at this time as 
showing the doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexan- 
dria and the Third Ecumenical Council on 
the Lord’s Supper as against Nestorian and 
Roman error, after so much has been written 


by the heresiarchs Keble and Pusey against it. | 


Nearly ready. 


Ready for the 
press. 


Most of it now 
ready. 


COUNCIL. 


VOLUME. 


SUBJECT MATTER. ITS STATE. 

Ephesus, A. IV., per- A Dissertation on the doctrine of St. Cyril Partly ready. 

D. 431. haps. of Alexandria on Economic Appropriation 
which was approved by the Third Synod. 
A Dissertation on the doctrine of the Third 
Council and the Fifth as to the worship of 
Christ’s Humanity specifically, and the views 
of their teachers Athanasius and Cyril of Alex- 
andria on it; with quotations from them and 
another on that theme. 

Ephesus, A. IV., per- A Dissertation as to the real author of the About ready for 

1). 431. haps. alleged X Books of Cyril of Alexandria | the press. 
Against Julian the Apostate, which is pagan- 
izing in its present form in places. 

Ephesus, A. V., per-| <A Dissertation on the differences between Partly ready. 
D. 431. haps. St. Theophilus of Alexandria and St. Cyril, : 

| his successor, on the one side, and John, after- 
| wards called Chrysostom,on the other. Other 
matter on Cyril will be added. 

Chalcedon. 1..11.,111.,͵ The entire Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical The Minutes 
and per-; Counciltranslated into English; with the Defi- | are begun, and 
haps IV. | nition, Normal Epistles read in it, and the|the Definition, 

τ | Canons, in Greek. Normal Epistles 
One of these volumes of Chalcedon will | and Canons are 
contain also a Dissertation on the Authority | finished. 
of the Canons of the first four Kcumenical 
Synods; and as to what Canons were approved 
in Canon I. of Chalcedon. 

II. Constanti-} I.and II.| All the Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Coun-| The Definition 

nople, A.D. 553. cil, including its famous Definition and 411 translated; the 
its other Remains. The Definition will be | Acts begun. 
given in Greek and English. 

III. Constan-| [.,11., ΠῚ. All the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Coun- The Definition, 
tinople, A. D.|and per-| cil, including its Definition and the Epistle of | EPistleof Agatho 
680. haps IV. Pope Agatho, a Report mentioned in the De-| ἅΠπᾶ the Report 

finition and allits other Remains. The Defi- | 47 © fin ished ; 
nition will be given in Greek and in English. | the Minutes are 
|The groundwork and nearly all the transla- | b&8"2- 

| tion of Pope Agatho’s Epistle is the work of 

| the learned Greek scholar, now deceased, Rev. 

| Marcus F. Hyde, Professor of Greek in Bur- 
| lington College, New Jersey, which he under-| ‘This will be be- 
| took, years ago, at the request of the editor. gun as soon as 
= PAE Os ἃ the money ne- 
4 cessary to pay the 
es eGo eens Therewill| A critical edition of the Six Ecumenical | expense of secur- 
ee Eoun- probably | Councils in the Greek original where it is ex- | ing and compar- 
oe be about 8 | tant, with the various lections where the texts | ing texts, and 


or to vol- 
umes. 


differ; with the old Latin translations where 
they exist, with Prolegomena and Notes. 


publishing, are 
given to us. 


One thing we do not say much of here, though it should accompany an 
edition of the Six Synods, and that is a Revision of the New Testament which 
shall render into English passages which plainly teach the full Divinity of the 
Consubstantial and Co-eternal Word, as they were understood by St. Athanasius 
and the Fathers of Nicaea to teach, but which are entirely mistranslated in every 
English Version, Protestant and Latin; and which in their present renderings 
are no guard against Arianism. Indeed, one sometimes hears one or two of those 
mistranslations relied on by Arians to prove their heresy. We will only say 
that when $1,200 is advanced by some follower of Christ, or 1,200 subscribers 
are gotten at $1 a copy, an Orthodox Revision of the New Testament will appear, 
and in it those glorious texts which witness for the Divinity of the Eternal Word 
will be translated as the Greek really means, and as the Orthodox of Nicaea, 
and the primitive Christians understood them to mean. Such a faithful render- 
ing of them will save many an unlearned soul from stumbling into the soul-des- 
troying heresy of Arius of the God-cursed death, and glorify Christ, and do a world 
of good. Who will make to Him and His service, an offering of the means to pub- 
lish it, or, if he can not do that, subscribe for a copy of it? No translation of 
any passage which violates the plain Greek sense, and ignores the witness of the 
primitive Christians, and the voice and decision of the Whole Church at Nicaea, 
as to its true sense, can stand forever. The sound seuse will always be dear to 
Orthodox men and will be preferred by them. 

But to return to the Six Synods. 

We can go to scholars alone and those whom they may influence, for many 
confound these sound Councils of the whole Church East and West with those 
unsound and erring local Councils of the West which Rome held in the Middle 
Ages and in modern times and misnamed Genera/; and some of the simple folk 
hardly know the meaning of the word Ecumenical, and a few might confound 
it with Economical. ‘The first volume of Nicaea was publisbed by the contribu- 
tions of clergy and a few laymen of more than usual intelligence. Without 
their help it could not have been published, and without the help of such no 
other volume of this series with these all important utterances of Universal 
Christendom, can see the light. We therefore confidently and earnestly turn to 
them, asking them in the name of Christ and his Church, aye, of Church and 
State, in the name of our Nation and of our Race and for its best interests in time 
and in eternity to help, each man according to his ability. The property is held 
by the author for the purposes named.in this circular, will be economically 
managed, kept free from the hands and control of infidels and idolatrizers who 
would tamper with it and pervert it, and at his death will be put into the hands 
of sound men only to carry it on as it has been begun, with the hope after the 
Councils are finished of using whatever may be left over to get a new and more 
critical edition of the Fathers than now exists. The Benedictines and some 
learned Anglicans and others have done much to separate the immense mass of 
the genuine productions of the ancients from the spurious, but the work is only 
partly and imperfeétly done. And sometimes a Romish editor has preferred 
an unsupported reading because it favored Roman claims, when the oldest and 
most authoritative manuscripts were against it. And some works now classed as 
genuine arereally spurious. The editor’s constant reference to St. Cyril of Alex- 
andria, for instance, on Ephesus, have taught him that some works now accepted 
as his are spurious. One chief one admitted into Aubert’s and Migne’s edition 


as his is plainly the remains of a work of one of his contemporaries altered into 
its present form to suit the creature-serving market of the middle ages. It would 
be anticipating to go into details on that matter here. The proof will be given 
in the proper volume, if God will. 

We wish to establish a house in which the poor scholars who do this work 
may live and be near the great libraries. Care will be taken to select only 
sound men who hold to the faith and practice of the VI. Councils. 

We ask yearly gifts and also bequests for these all important ends. Able 
prelates assisted Bingham to publish his great work on Christian Antiquities, 
which has done so much to enlighten and strengthen the faith of tens of thous- 
ands of clergy in different lands and in the different languages into which it has 
been translated, and through them the millions whom they have instructed and 
fortified against the paganism and other errors of Rome on the one hand and 
the errors of Anti-New-Testament Radicalism and anarchy on the other, and to 
keep them in the path of primitive Christian and Universal Church Orthodoxy. 
Surely, when we consider the vast blessing wrought by the few hundreds or 
thousands of pounds given him, we must all see that there has been a vast inter- 
est of good on that investment and that it has yielded blessed fruitage as few 
works do. We appeal to the learned who have the means, and to all lovers of 
learning, tohelp usin the same way. Please return the subscription list enclosed 
to James Chrystal, 255 Grove St., Jersey City, N. J., with your name on it for what 
you can afford. You will find it difficult to find a more needy or more worthy 
or paying object of your charity than this work. If he who gives a cup of cold 
water only to a disciple in the name of a disciple, an act of mere corporal mercy, 
shall not lose his reward (Matt. X., 42), much more shall not he who exercises 
his charity in the higher domain of Christian saving faith with which the docu- 
ments translated in this set deal. For the spiritual and the mental are in their 
very nature higher fields of labor than the merely bodily, and besides there are 
vastly fewer workers in them. 


LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS TO THE FUND TO PUBLISH THE SIX ECU- 
MENICAL COUNCILS, WITH THE AMOUNTS SUBSCRIBED, 
ὍΕ: Ὁ JUNE 9g, 1801: 
Right) Rev, HH. Cy Potter; D.D.,11).D:, Bishop of New Vorki=- -ἰ- 9 ἘΞ $50 00 Paid 
Right Rev. William Paret, Ὁ. D., LL. D., Bishop of Maryland, Baltimore, Μά... 10 00 


Right Rev. Boyd Vincent, D.D., Assistant Bishop of Southern Ohio, Cincinnati, O. 5 00 Paid 
Right Rev. Nelson S. Rulison, D. D., Assistant Bishop of Central Pennsylvania, 


Bethlehem! Paws 5 τύ Es ee a a en ae ase see 10 00 Paid 
Right Rev. M. A. De Wolfe Howe, Ὁ. D., LL. D , Bishop of Central Pennsylvania, 
Reading wPar os οὐ τὺ τ ει εν ΒΝ ne eee eee 10 00 Paid 
Right Rev. O. W. Whitaker, 1). D., Bishop of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa____- 10 oo Paid 
Right Rev. John Scarborough, D. D., Bishop of New Jersey, Trenton, N. J-------- 10 00 Paid 
Rev. Phillips Brooks, Ὁ. D., Bishop elect of Massachusetts, Boston, Mass__---_-_-- 10 00 Paid 
Revs John! Henty Hopkins DD: News ΝΟ κε πε το, τὴν} ξεν τέξει ee 25 00 Paid 
Revo Morcan Dix 7. Ὁ i Coy EIN Gy BVO Tlie eee 75 00 Paid 
Rev. Joun We Brown,S: 1... New Work 20 τ Ὁ ΠῚ a ae oe 50 00 Paid 


Revs Di Parker Morgan ΘΝ εν ΟΕ τς ene ene hoes Dn eee eee 25 00 Paid 


Reva D VAs Greer Dis NG we MOD meee ase eee Ὁ δε τς γ᾿ oe 3 Ὁ) mea. 


Rev. Chauncey B. Brewster, Brooklyn, N. Y_--------------- set Sates ee” ΟΥΘΟ ΒΕ 
RevviRe wy iche> Brooklyn (Ne Mores ane eens Ne ee ee a πὴ 10 00 Paid 
Revi eiNewton Stanger, DoD iNew ΝΟΣ; 23.252.)  ὺ et ae oS ee 000) ἜΞΩ 
Revi Georce RiVani Del water, DD... INGw VOnk τ: 0 0 τ ὕὉὉ. eas  10)00)) Raid 
Rev Comelits 8. smith Dip ΝΟΥ VOD τι. 1.2: eee ee Ἐκ νου να το TOLOO ΓΒΕ 
ReysamesivMinlchahey ΠΤ ΝΘ ΟΣ ἘΞ ππΠ τ π' aoe Ξ eee Ιο co Paid 
REGATTA LOOKS TING VINO Lis ie ee to ee ee ae A σαν τι τ. ae 10 00 Paid 
ΒΟ LY | SATTOLLEE TAD LD SIN Cane O Toke eee een oe ee ea Lo πόσον ala 
Re Sad Che. ΓΗΒ Ὁ ον ΟΣ πο πὲ νὴ τευ ee eee a 10 00 Paid 
Reva ehilip A.) Hu Brown’, News MOrk 20-2 τ Ὁ eS ee δ’ τ᾿ 10 00 Paid 
Reva bnomasinl. Peters: ΟΣ sea τ Οὐ ee ee eee Io 00 Paid 
Revs winchester Donald, D yD oaNew ΟΕ Εν 2 ee ee τ 10 00 

Mrsbrancis Gurney.dul Pont, pwilnungton) Dele 22222 τ ee πο 50 00 Paid 
Mr. James Flemming, Esq., Counsellor-at-Law, Jersey City, N. J--------------___- 20 00 Paid 
Miruncnarics Prederick eotmiant ING Ww ΟΣ a2 =a Στ ae ee ee 25 00 Paid 
ΠΕ ΤΥ N- DUunnell Se Ὁ ΠΝ ιν ΟΣ aoe eo an a ae ae sae ae ae == ἼΟ Ὁ 

Revere eh) Del Costar ΠΣ ἢ ον ΟΣ ee meee Ὁ τ {εὖ τ ΞΡ Ἂ- 5 00 

Revs ΟΞ ΡΠ ΕΠ πε Rylancey Ὁ. Ὁ ον νοῦ. - ο΄ Ὁ τὸὕὸὉ neon Ὁ το OO 516 


STATEMENT REGARDING THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES OF 
THE FUND TO PUBLISH THE SIX ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. 
Receipts up to June 9, 1891. 


Raidisubscriptionsias/above:—_- a5 52228 ee eee ees ee $525 00 

MI pParclisuDSGEuptlOnS GMS Ail SUS bE; Vs 8 Te ae  - ὃ πὸ τ Ἐν στ 35 00 
Receipts (future) from outside of the Fund: 

HOMO COPlesiOln Vole Of INICAGA AL 4π|5 001 ΞΞΞ srs ee τ ea ee εὐπ τσον 510 00 
Expenditures from Fund: 

HoOmpOok: paperiais= = τ Ὁ τ τὸ ae εν τ ee ee οὶ 88 co 

ἘΣΣΙ 1 Se Ὁ ΠΠῚ 5, ΤΑΣ, 50 percent. Of" COS teas ae ee ee whee ee τ eee ee ne Se 437 00 


Expenditures from outside of Fund: 
For circulars on the set, postage, envelopes, mailing to clergy on both sides of the 
PSblam ELC Het ens a DOWIE aie Mae Ὁ τι 9 eT i a 1 EB Be we ees PLO UR Be νυ 200 00 
Other expenditures to be met in the future when Volume I. of Nicaea is finished, 
for 50 per cent of printing bill for book, for binding, sending out to subscribers, 


foricircularsito, Americantand British) cleroyee- a2. 02 25. soe Nee eee ee 940 00 
Motalitomiviolunreiin OfeNy Gaeaa= == saan we eee eee ene ee $1,500 
RECAPITULATION. 

Total cost of issuing and putting in circulation Vol. I, of Nicaea, about.-___-_.__________ $1,500 ov 
Ofswhich hasbeen paid tromebublication mhund oo sete ee eee τε 525 00 
Bysborrowed money, withoutinterest= ΞΕ Ἐν nee ΡΒ ee τ τὰ τὶ 200 00 
Of which will be paid by sales of 170 copies now subscribed for at $3 each___-_----_____ 510 00 
Besibscriptions due, AUSUSt τήτδοι Wasa a τ Ὁ τ ee 9 τ aes 35 00 
ΤΟ ΘΙ τ Come so τ {ΞΕ πεν πὸ ον $1,270 00 

WGESS'$200! DOLTO wedi et eee ee are ih Pa ee ieee ee ας oe Lie οἱ 200 ‘00 

Totalimetancomeion Volo τ jof Nicaeals τ τ $930 00 

otal deficitls 22S 2 2 πε ες eee ee eee a 570 00 


‘The edition is of500 copies. 500—170 copies=330 copies left for sale. 


FORM OF A BEQUEST, 


I give and bequeath to James Chrystal, of 255 Grove Street, Jersey City, 
New Jersey, United States of North America, the sum of---=---___-_ -__3_=-1=_= 
dollars to be applied as he shall deem best to the Publication and Ceeeeeen of 
the Six Ecumenical Councils, held A. D. 325 to 68o. 


nee et, 
ἣ 


Pe 


Ritu 
nse nh 


Pa 
Me 


ἍΤ EARL ON 


yah | > 
σον 


Mi 


t 
: 
a i 
ῳ 708 
x Ὁ 
2 


A aa aa 


01367528 


93122 
C46 Vl 


Ti 


BRITTLE DO NOT 


rm NTH nNDY 
t ι ᾿ 


BOUND 


MAR 16 1961 


POO Ua ΗΝ ΗΝ 
i Pen Mee ALT 
ne Pha pital ae 
ἐμ chats! a 
DACA RMT 
ye ae? 


fit AP 


hi " 

yt then) 

| HARA 
ΠΗ 


ἘΡΉΜΗΝ ἢ 

ΤῊΝ i μ ttl 
ἢ τ 
ἘΠ ΗΓΉ ΜΗ 


τὴ 
τ 


petess =. 
sere 


i 


Hea 


~< 


ita’ 


uel 


φὰς: 


‘ 
ἫΝ ih 


£* ‘ 
i 1, ὑπ Gee Prved 
AAS HE fe ὙΠ ΝΠ ΠΝ 
ΠΝ ἽΝ ι ἘΝ 


ΟΥ̓ 4} 
{ih 


pageatetesetesete: 
ees 
peiets2 


ΠΞΞΟΞ 


ΣΑΣ τετε 


eee eee 


ewes 


SSS τς 


iti 
uh 
et 


eae 


Spe steert 


itt 
TOC He 
wine 


> ὍΝ ἰ ἘΝ ἜΗΝ rete a Ki ἣν ἜΗΝ 
ibis Bin δ ΗΝ ; 4 
Se a 
ahd τὴν h Σ ν ᾿ ΓΝ ἀπὲ Wy 
ΝΘ tates at ahi TRA URS (MRR HAR RH sie 
si eis uch abate ἮΝ rth seri ἯΙ pea: ΗΝ 
CARS αν γε ca Oe Tene Ἀ γεπτει 
ἊΝ τῇ Sef ΒΏΜΗΙ ἮΝ bree ΡΝ 

ἘΔ ἀδη τθν ἀπ ΔΝ τ τ εἰ 


ΤΑ ote ee peter t RUBEN SLRs sei 
Pee ORT Tatra teh she setaee th 
ἐμὸν as ν Wat } sae aN ek SHB ISHt RS 


He fg 
i 


oy ἣ | ἢ 
Sorter stds it 
Tua i + 
ἈΠΕ ΕΝ δ μα nea 
ἈΝΈΡΙ ΑΙ ΜΕ ΠΡ ett ΤΗΝ! 
tian ether τς  ἐτέσεεν 
Ras tee ¢ S 
$ if ; 


steered ae 
ὄψοις μὲ 


ΤΟΥ 


ae oe 
> 


3 
iT, 


Ἂν 


tattoo Pact. 


FS 
sizizisPiet: 
Ἐὰ ἘΡΌῬΕΞΙ 


ἕξετε: ¢ 


ἘΠ + 
Herta! 
Pera are, 
eee ll 


